Hi FreeDiver;

You wrote;

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html
_________________________________________________________

The same can be said for religion can it not?

original article: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Yes, you are right. The same is true of creationism. Even the catholic church acknowldges that it is not scientific.

From onlineoipinion - Ludwig I have exceeded my quota again there, so I will respond here:

You don’t believe that evolution is real? Or perhaps you do, but that it is just not scientifically proven and therefore not technically fact, despite overwhelming evidence?

It is not scientific. That is all I am arguing. See the 4th paragraph:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

You’ve got me stumped with your differentiation between evolution and natural selection.

Some people refer to them as macro and micro evolution.

Botany and geology are fields of study and they are very much sciences.

This terminology came about because some fields of study use the scientific method almost exclusively. But if you used mysticism as a tool for understanding geological formations you might be studying geology, but you wouldn't be doing science.

This is pure science, but it doesn’t directly involve hypotheses, although they can be developed around the data.

That is the whole point. If all you ended up with was pages of data, your research would be of little value. It is the conclusions (theories) you draw from those observations that have the value. But they are only valuable from a scientific perspective if they can be tested somehow.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2007 at 3:07pm:

original article: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html Yes, you are right. The same is true of creationism. Even the catholic church acknowldges that it is not scientific.

Thanks FreeDiver I modified the original link. It works now.

I'm not sure what's being argued here.  Neither evolution or intelligent design can be proven-- the arguments seem pointless.  Evolutionary theory has become dogma.  Similarly in more recent times has the global warming theory become dogma despite evidence to the contrary.

This is more of a philosophical argument. It's not like global warming where it will affect what we actually do. However it should have an impact on how it is taught in high school, and how much credibility people assign to it who aren't familiar with the details.

The article basically argues that the theory of evolution, where it goes beyond natural selection, is not what is traditionally regarded as science and cannot be viewed in the same context as theories that have been rigourously tested by repeatable experiment. The techniques involved in studying and 'verifying' the theory are not the same techniques that have given us modern technology and our powerful understanding of the natural world. It is a theory that has survived the test of time because of it's infinite flexibility and the lack of competing theories, not because it has been subject to the same testing you would normally apply to scientific theories.

I agree with what you have explained.
For a good treatment of the problems with Darwinism read "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E Johnson (ISBN 0-8038-1234-1).
I found it most helpful.

The UK is moving evolution out of the science classroom and teaching it in religion classes where it will be given equal time with creationism. The move is designed to equip children with the knowledge needed to understand the broader public debate. They claim it will help diffuse the bitter battles like thsoe that have arisen in the US, though it may overemphasise the conflict between the two beliefs.

more details in the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16791773/

LONDON - British teenagers may soon be debating creationism and intelligent design in religion classes that give equal time to the Darwinists and atheists who reject these views of the world’s origins.

The guidelines, issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, place the issue firmly in religious education class, rather than the science classes where American intelligent-design proponents want it to be handled.

By placing creationist views with those of their critics in religion classes, the curriculum authority could head off the divisive debates that have pitted religion against science in the United States.

“This is a clever way of defusing the issue,” Clifford Longley, a religious affairs commentator, told Reuters.

While endorsing neither side of the science and religion debate, the authority made clear it sees creationism and intelligent design as part of a wider public debate that pupils should be able to understand.

Among the guidelines, applying to children up to the age of 14, is a suggestion that pupils act out the debate by playing the roles of Galileo, Charles Darwin and the current best-selling atheist author Richard Dawkins.

“None of this is compulsory,” the spokesman said. “It is entirely optional and offered as guidance. Our position is that it should be discussed in religious education and not in science.”

State schools in Britain teach religion because Britain has an established Christian church, Anglicanism. Prime Minister Tony Blair has joined religious and scientific leaders in resisting calls for creationism to be taught by itself.

“I can see no reason why we have to regard Darwinism as a holy text that cannot be questioned,” he said. “It is a very good idea to challenge that in religious education. Just teaching children Darwinism doesn’t stretch their minds and give them intellectual hurdles to jump over. There should be lively debate.”

Interesting article freediver. I can see where they are coming from and it may be a way to break down the anti unchristian barrier of the next generation. Allowing people to understand that there are many different beliefs that need to be considered before becoming adamant that your belief is the only one that exists.

8-)

The statements in the article are nonsense. Evolution IS taken by science as a FACT and does have predictive value. The argument about falsification, which is irrelevant to this anyway, harks back to a discredited Karl Popper idea of the 1930s. It was not even accepted then.
Looks to me like the purpose of your site is to sell religion and all things green.
The following link explains it quite well, but Stephen Jay Gould and all the other biologists have also explained it.
.....talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

I was wondering when you'd show up. Welcome to OzPolitic.

The argument about falsification, which is irrelevant to this anyway, harks back to a discredited Karl Popper idea of the 1930s.

Even wikipedia defines the modern scientific method as having a foundation in experimentation, which evolution does not. If it was discredited, you would be able to discredit it right now.

That talkorigins link comes up all the time, but doesn't address my argument. It talks about how creationists misunderstand evolution. My article is about how some evolutionists misunderstand science (it's usually the ones who see everything from a perspective of evolution vs creationism, rather than from a philosophy of science perspective). If you understood my argument you wouldn't be bringing up creationism at all.

Evolution is science and has been verified. See the main wikipaedia article or any reputable book on the subject. You seem to be trying to use slight of hand. No theory can be 100% verified because all theories are based on past events and the future may be different. Induction cannot prove anything but within the meaning of the word verify, evolution is verified. Even falsification can never be 100%.
You evade the creation issue but I'm sure you are aware that your assertions provide an opportunity for this dangerous notion to enter and I suspect you are happy with this. An earlier post of yours addressed this issue in the context of the teaching of evolution in UK schools. Your post has COMPLETELY misrepresented the issue there. You state "The UK is moving evolution out of the science classroom and teaching it in religion classes where it will be given equal time with creationism". This is absolutely false. The teaching of evolution is staying firmly within the science classes, with the science teachers, and there is no time to be given to creation in the science classes. The issue you mention recognises that the evolution/creation debate is one which children should be aware of. Accordingly the evolution/creation debate is to be handled within religion classes (which are compulsory in the UK). You are clearly a creationist, whatever you say, but are too feeble to profess it and prefer to attempt to delude the gullible.

No theory can be 100% verified because all theories are based on past events and the future may be different.

Falsification and 100% verifiability are not the same thing. Science is not based on past events. History is. Science is based on repeatable experiments, which is the ultimate test of a theory because anyone can test a theory for themselves at any time.

Even falsification can never be 100%.

Does that even mean anything?

You evade the creation issue but I'm sure you are aware that your assertions provide an opportunity for this dangerous notion to enter

So you are motivated by fear of someone else's opinion rather than an interest in the truth? Labelling an idea as dangerous is the first tool of censorship and is antithetical to science.

and I suspect you are happy with this

Actually no, this would be a lot simpler if people could drop all the creationism baggage.

and there is no time to be given to creation in the science classes

I didn't say there was, nor would I, as you imply, support such a move.

fd - you say - " Science is not based on past events" - but it is. Yes it is based on repeatable experiments - therefore it is based on the past. There can be no guarantee of repetition - hence you cannot rely on induction. Just check any Scientific philosophy text - eg Ayer, Carnap, Reichenbach etc. But this is a bit academic and getting away from the point.

No I am not fearful of others opinions and I'm 100% for science not metaphysics. The teaching of creationism really is dangerous - children are susceptable. Creationism comes out of religion and all religious teaching is dangerous - it is pure mumbo jumbo.

And I repeat that your article suggesting that evolution is to be taken out of science teaching in the UK is wrong. You clearly invented this to lend credence to your false assertion about evolution not being science.

I didn't invent it I got it from msn.com

Yes it is based on repeatable experiments - therefore it is based on the past.

Repeatable experiments done in the past yes, but not on evidence dug out of the ground that must be pieced together using the tools of historians.

There can be no guarantee of repetition - hence you cannot rely on induction.

If the nature of the universe changed and the outcome of experiments changed, then science would handle that OK. True, it does not rely on an experiment to continue giving the same results, but it does rely on an ability to repeat an experiment at a later date. Otherwise science would turn into dogma, just like evolution has.

No I am not fearful of others opinions

If you are not fearful, why do you keep saying it is dangerous and using it to sidetrack the discussion? Surely if my argument somehow supported creationism, then that is beside the point and is not evidence that my argument is wrong. You are appealing to fear of consequences, which is a logical fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20consequentiam

sense makes sense.

Apologies if I'm mis-understanding your motive in this. It certainly looks like this is a back door attempt to bring in creationism. The incorrect reference to the UK schools issue provides support for this conclusion. However, for the moment I'll assume that you are simply asserting that evolution is not science and nothing more - full stop. Then it comes down to the empirical verifiability issue. You should understand that the purpose of this concept is to separate science from metaphysical non-verifiable issues. It is not necessary to actually verify a theory before it becomes a part of science. It can be false and still be verifiable. The point is whether something is verifiable in principle. For example, Newton's theory of gravitation is still a part of science, and taught in science, even though it has been superceeded by Einstein's General Relativity. Both are verifiable but Einsteins theory better fits the data. String theory has not been verified but maybe some day and is thus a part of science. Lamarkism (pre-Darwin - inheritability of aquired characteristics) has been discredited but is still a part of science - it could have met the data but didn't. Evolution on the other hand has actually been verified in laboratory conditions and has accurately predicted fossil findings. It remains the currently favoured scientific theory. I've seen it argued on the web that the lab experiments on evolution are invalid because they were done in the lab. On this basis most of science would have to be discarded. Verification/experiment can be a tenuous subject. Take astronomy. The composition of distant stars is certainly an issue for science but we obviously cannot go there and take samples.
If you are saying that evolution is not verifiable in principle (but I and others say it is) then you are indeed taking it outside the realm of science and into the realm of metaphysics where lies all of religion.

Apologies if I'm mis-understanding your motive in this.

Aren't my motives beside the point anyway? What motivates someone doesn't make them right or wrong.

The incorrect reference to the UK schools issue provides support for this conclusion.

If I was wrong about that then why haven't you given a link or quote that contradicts what I said? Surely that would be better than arguing about it with nothing to go on other than the article I linked to.

However, for the moment I'll assume that you are simply asserting that evolution is not science and nothing more - full stop.

Thank you.

It is not necessary to actually verify a theory before it becomes a part of science.

Actually it is necessary to verify it before it becomes a theory, otherwise it is an hypothesis.

String theory has not been verified but maybe some day and is thus a part of science.

Maybe. I don't know enough of the details to tell whether it is purely 'metaphysical.' However, the same cannot be said of Evolution. It will always be a question of history.

Evolution on the other hand has actually been verified in laboratory conditions and has accurately predicted fossil findings.

This is where you have to be careful to separate natural selection from evolution. When I say that evolution is not a scientific theory, I am referring to the parts that go beyond natural selection as it can be tested in a lab or a broader 'experiment'. That is, things like universal common ancestry and the origin of the species.

I've seen it argued on the web that the lab experiments on evolution are invalid because they were done in the lab.

I agree that is a silly argument.

The composition of distant stars is certainly an issue for science but we obviously cannot go there and take samples.  

Perhaps not, but the theories on which such conjectures are built are scientific. Just like natural selection is scientific but extrapolating that beyond what is falsifiable is not scientific.

So, you doubt - "That is, things like universal common ancestry and the origin of the species".

Now I'm convinced you are selling religion. Sort of like Encyclopaedia salesmen who are never actually selling - just doing market research or something like that. Even Jehovas Witnesses hide their motives. They just talk at first about the current state of the world - and science.
Your motives are important. Dimensionless was right.
Bye

Beneficial mutation is another one.

Are you worried I might convert you to Christianity without you realising it? If you really believed what you are saying you would be able to show I am wrong, and my alleged motives would give you an even stronger incentive to do so. After all, you claimed that this argument is a back door for dangerous ideas. Anyone reading this might conclude that you know I am right and are leaving now before it becomes too obvious that this 'dangerous idea' has merit.

Freediver,
I'm not sure why you feel that Darwinism is not scientific. You (I think) have already conceded in your essay that evolution (micro if you like) and Natural Selection are acceptable scientific theories. I agree. These concepts describe well what occurs in nature and are easily observable empirically.

Your hypothesis, if I understand it correctly, is that it is Darwin's theory about the origin of species which is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. Leaving aside the question of whether Popper's criteria is adequate for deciding what is valid science, I believe your hypothesis is false.

Darwin's theory is quite specific about the processes [ie. evolution (genetics) and Natural Selection] which he believed resulted in the diversification of life into separate species, and the consequent existence of common ancestors for different species. This position is falsifiable. All that needs to be done is to show that he is wrong by finding fault with his assertions - by demonstrating that the processes don't work. Whether you can or cannot actually do so right now is irrelevant - the point is that his theory is making a claim which can in principle be disproven. As long as it has not been disproven, and as long as it remains the best available model to describe the nature we observe, then it will continue to be regarded as a good scientific theory. You might call it "survival of the fittest".

There is empirical evidence to support the idea that separate species can evolve from diversification within existing species. The gene pool of the seagulls of Eurasia stretches from the Atlantic coast across the Arctic to the Pacific. Gulls all along this range interbreed naturally in their local areas, however the birds at the extreme east and west are actually unable to breed with each other. If some disaster caused the extinction of sufficient intervening birds, then the populations in the east and west would become distinct species each following a separate and independent evolutionary trajectory.

That Darwin's theory has proven to be adaptable to accommodate new data should be seen as a testimony to it's fundamental scientific value rather than a weakness.

Just a link to the other interesting thread on this topic.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173843175

(Put it here because this thread is linked directly to freediver's essay, so is a more likely point of entry)

This position is falsifiable. All that needs to be done is to show that he is wrong by finding fault with his assertions - by demonstrating that the processes don't work.

That is not the scientific method. Obviously a scientific theory cannot be logically flawed, but if you fail to falsify it by more bovious means then there has to be recourse to empiricism.

Whether you can or cannot actually do so right now is irrelevant - the point is that his theory is making a claim which can in principle be disproven.

How?

Gulls all along this range interbreed naturally in their local areas, however the birds at the extreme east and west are actually unable to breed with each other.

That is not empirical evidence.

That Darwin's theory has proven to be adaptable to accommodate new data should be seen as a testimony to it's fundamental scientific value rather than a weakness.

It is the adaptability itself that makes it unscientific.

A simple example will clarify both the scientific method and the principle of falsifiability:-

If I make an assertion (hypothesis) that pushing a button will cause a light to turn on, I can test this by pushing the button and observing the result. So long as the light goes on when I push the button my hypothesis is good and scientific. However there is no guarantee that the light will always go on when I push the button. My hypothesis can be falsified by somebody who can demonstrate a situation where pushing the button does not cause the light to go on. They can falsify my hypothesis. They may do this by gaining insight into why the light goes on when the button is pushed and then doing something to break the circuit. They have produced a more complex model (hypothesis) and found it to be a better description of the observed nature. My original theory may still be quite adequate in most everyday situations, but the more complex theory, developed by adding new knowledge to my original theory, is more accurate.

The scientific method is simply a process of creating a hypothesis, testing it, and then REVISING the hypothesis in light of the data acquired, then testing again, etc. It is a continuous process of testing and revising. Adaptability is CRITICAL if any theory is to maintain relevance as new data is accumulated. The fact that we still give credit to Darwin for laying the foundation for current thinking is testimony to the degree to which his ideas are still respected as good scientific contributions.

Falsifiability is a principle which has been claimed discriminates between a useful scientific contribution and one which is a useless pseudo-scientific "catch-all". It is all about how a hypothesis is presented. It is about making a claim which divides the world into true and false statements which contain useful information. From my example above, so long as the light always goes on when the button is pushed, then this theory allows a technician to build a useful device. However, once the theory has been falsified (perhaps his device malfunctions), then the technician can no longer built his device with confidence until he has a new theory which remains true under the necessary conditions. All that is necessary for a hypothesis to be falsifi-ABLE- is for it to be presented in a manner which can (in theory) be disproven.

The gull example provides empirical evidence that it is possible for a single gene-pool (ie. single species) to contain sufficient variation to allow it (in theory) to divide into two distinct species. If you wanted to (possibly) falsify this claim, all you would have to do is kill all the intervening birds yourself and observe the result. The existing observed knowledge gives a very good prediction of what the end result would probably be - two distinct species created from one.

Darwin's hypothesis could in theory be disproven by demonstrating that the mechanisms he describes do not work, either by finding fault with his explanations, or by demonstrating that other mechanisms are actually responsible for the things he has observed. Some people believe in spontaneous creation as an alternative to Darwin's claims. If they could demonstrate this to be true they would have falsified Darwin. The fact is that improved variations on Darwin's claims are regarded as the best explanation of the origin of species, using the available evidence. That is exactly what science is about.

Adaptability is CRITICAL if any theory is to maintain relevance as new data is accumulated.

No it isn't. The example you gave is of a theory being discarded because it wasn't adaptable.

All that is necessary for a hypothesis to be falsifi-ABLE- is for it to be presented in a manner which can (in theory) be disproven.  

Evolution fails this criteria. As far as the scientific method is concerned, you have to be able to design an experiment that would disprove it if it were false.

The gull example provides empirical evidence that it is possible for a single gene-pool (ie. single species) to contain sufficient variation to allow it (in theory) to divide into two distinct species.

According to the description you gave, there already are two species. Killing off the birds in the middle would not add to our knowledge or test any predictions. Both before and after you would have two groups of birds that connot interbreed. If they eventually did manage to interbreed it would not disprove the theory of evolution. If they did not manage to interbreed it also would not disprove the theory of evolution.

If you wanted to (possibly) falsify this claim, all you would have to do is...

The claim in question is not the same thing as the theory of evolution.

Darwin's hypothesis could in theory be disproven by demonstrating that the mechanisms he describes do not work

True, but not by experiment. That is what science is all about. Most fields of knowledge have theories that are improved upon. It alone is not a characteristic of science. Empirical falsifiability is.

At this point, freediver, I need to ask - what exactly is this "Theory of Evolution" you are referring to. I began this discussion by making some falsifiably specific assertions about my understanding of your position. You haven’t contested (falsified) them, as yet:-

(i) (Micro) Evolution *is* a valid scientific model.
(ii) Natural Selection *is* a valid scientific model.
(iii) Darwin's explanation of the mechanisms which give rise to species differentiation *is not* a valid scientific model. These mechanisms are (i) and (ii).
(iv) Beneficial Mutation is not scientific. I've not mentioned this one before, but include it here for completeness – I think it’s covered by (i) and (ii).

Are the above correct? If not, I'd appreciate a (falsifiable) statement outlining your conception of a "Theory of Evolution" and what exactly is not falsifiable.

Popper's principle of FALSIFIABILITY was intended to identify pseudo-scientific statements, and yes, ADAPTABILITY is a relevant concept, however the kinds of adaptations he was concerned about were those which were the result of ambiguous terminology or statements which could be endlessly RE-INTERPRETED in response to new information. The key thing to note is that this principle does not refer to the replacement of an old theory with a new one (which is good science, as we have both said), but refers to shifting the goal posts (of definitions and interpretations) in order to keep an old theory intact. The classic examples of pseudo-science are Astrology, where ambiguity and subjectivity allow simple "predictions" to be "validated" at will, and Freudian dream analysis, which produces subjective conclusions which can never be evaluated objectively. Darwin's theory on the origin of species, on the other hand, makes clear objective statements which can in theory be falsified.

If Darwinian theory is generally regarded as scientifically sound (as it is), then ANY speculation about falsification must by definition be hypothetical. Unless you have a REAL alternative hypothesis, you cannot do an experiment to disprove a theory, this is true. This is why I provided examples of REAL alternative hypotheses which you could investigate experimentally, if inclined. Here are some again; expose errors in Darwin's reasoning, demonstrate evidence of spontaneous creation, demonstrate evidence of divine creation, demonstrate evidence of non-genetic evolution, etc. You could do empirical tests to try to reveal any of these phenomena, but my guess is that people have already tried and failed. This is why Darwin's theory remains unfalsified - but still sufficiently specified to enable technically FALSIFYING hypotheses to be formulated. Just invent your own alternative hypothesis and do some experimentation. Simply observing nature is an experiment.

Just to be clear, it is good science to replace an old theory with a new one - the important thing is that a scientific theory must be the one that agrees best with observed nature. If, however, an old theory is sufficiently useful that it can be retained as a subset of a new theory (subject to certain conditions or modifications) then that old theory might retain some value or recognition. Retaining vestiges of the old theory is not scientific, but nostalgic, or practical. If the new theory is sufficiently close to the old theory such that the changes are minimal or evolutionary in nature, then the new theory could (perhaps unscientifically, but very practically) be regarded as an adaptation or revision of the old. This is the form of adaptability I was referring to in my example (as is clear from the carefully worded context). This point is more relevant to Kuhn’s notion of scientific paradigms than Popper’s notion of falsifiability, although it is worth noting that Popper was inspired by Darwinism, and saw the progress of science as an evolutionary process akin to “survival of the fittest”.

(BTW - The gull example relates directly to assertion (iii) above. The gulls are an example of a ring species and not two (or more) distinct species. New species of fruit flies have also been created experimentally by evolutionary processes under laboratory conditions.)

iii) You should use the term theory, not model. Furthermore the mechanisms involved go beyond 1) and ii)

however the kinds of adaptations he was concerned about were those which were the result of ambiguous terminology or statements which could be endlessly RE-INTERPRETED in response to new information

That's what evolution is like.

Darwin's theory on the origin of species, on the other hand, makes clear objective statements which can in theory be falsified.  

Natural selection does. Evolution doesn't.

Unless you have a REAL alternative hypothesis, you cannot do an experiment to disprove a theory, this is true.

Not necessarily. New or alternative theories tend to arise in response to observations and results that seem to conflict with the currently accepted theory.

This is why I provided examples of REAL alternative hypotheses which you could investigate experimentally, if inclined. Here are some again; expose errors in Darwin's reasoning, demonstrate evidence of spontaneous creation, demonstrate evidence of divine creation, demonstrate evidence of non-genetic evolution, etc.

None of those examples are experiments.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

You could do empirical tests to try to reveal any of these phenomena, but my guess is that people have already tried and failed.

No you couldn't. At least, not as far as scientists define what an experiment is.

Simply observing nature is an experiment.

No it isn't.

Just invent your own alternative hypothesis and do some experimentation.

I did. It fits our observations far better than evolution.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/theory-sufficient-genetic-potential.html

Just to be clear, it is good science to replace an old theory with a new one - the important thing is that a scientific theory must be the one that agrees best with observed nature.

That model of science was last used by the ancient greeks and explains why they didn't get very far.

If, however, an old theory is sufficiently useful that it can be retained as a subset of a new theory (subject to certain conditions or modifications) then that old theory might retain some value or recognition.

People often assume that this is the case, for example that Newtonian Mechanics is a valid 'subset' of relativity. It isn't. Thomas Kuhn explains why in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.' The kind of adaptability you are describing is not the kind I meant when I used the term to describe evolution.

I don't see why you are so insistent in separating natural selection and evolution freediver? Natural selection is a part of evolutionary theory.

The way I see it, evolution in all its ambiguity is surely a true scientific statement, that is: things change with time.

What are some specific ambiguities of evolution that are not natural selection ad taught in schools?

As far as I'm aware, what you call natural selection is simply what 99% of people see as evolution, this seems to be no more that a rather elaborate argument about how we define two terms?

Oh dear... freediver I'm sorry mate but I've just read some of your article and you have just lost all the respect you built up through our arguments in this subject.

1) not all scientific theories are falsifiable, this is why we use the term 'theory'.

2) you carry on about the inherant flaws of evolution, then propose an equally ambiguous and flawed model and claim it to be superior to evolution for no logical reason other than what seems to be a desire to reconcile christian beliefs into natural selection... dear me... argument for arguments sake? I'll side with the vast majority of researchers and scientists across the globe on this issue thanks.

3) Evolution has produced falsifiable experiment: natural selection, you even agree that natural selection is scientific

4) "Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation." Common ancestry has been found to be quite an acceptable model that has evidence to support it. Example, my natural science major friend has told me about some species of tree that were scientifically demonstrated to be separate species, so these two species were thought to not be able to interbreed, very different trees, and yet when brought together it was found that these two distinct species of tree were capable of interbreeding, clearly demonstrating a common ancestry and causing a slight shake up in the definitions of species and natural selection models. Beneficial mutation is a spurious interpretation of evolutionary theory there freediver. It is and always was thought that mutation occurred as a result of survivability, evolutionary theory does not predict that organisms can majically mutate to best fit their environment, it predicts that those who already have the best attributes to survive, will survive. I know you will just say that this is not evolution it is natural selection, I'm sorry freediver, HELLO, natural selection is the model used to describe the processes of evolution, they are not isolated concepts, if you agree with one you agree with both because they are different aspects of the same thing.

5) "There was of course one prediction made using the theory of evolution. It was predicted that the fossil record would show a smooth transition from species to species." This is not true, many evolutionary theorists believe that evolution tends towards rapid and isolated bursts of change, which you acknowledge is supported by the fossil evidence. You go on to say this: "Being so adaptable, the theory of evolution was simply changed to match this observation. Thus, the current version of the theory of evolution can be successfully used to 'predict' trends in the fossil record." except that this is what you do with scientific theories, you take the evidence and modify your theory if you have to to support the evidence. Einstein did not come up with his theories through deduction and prediction, he created maths that fitted the known evidence

6) Your ark theory is no better than evolution, in fact not only is it just as lacking in all the things you slam evolution for, it defies scientific reason by suggesting that all organisms just always have been here. So what about before? Faith? God put us here? How does this have more scientific merit than a a theory that proposes a scenario that could have occurred without divine intervention?

The way I see it, evolution in all its ambiguity is surely a true scientific statement, that is: things change with time.

People knew that things change before the theory of evolution showed up. There is more to it than that.

What are some specific ambiguities of evolution that are not natural selection ad taught in schools?

Universal common ancestry. Beneficial mutations. The origin of the spceies. They aren't ambiguities, but you get the picture....

As far as I'm aware, what you call natural selection is simply what 99% of people see as evolution, this seems to be no more that a rather elaborate argument about how we define two terms?

I wouldn't say it's 99%. It is not a way to define the terms. The terms were already defined this way. Obviously if you leave the terms undefined the argument becomes circular. I think that I have hit on the general understanding of natural selection and evolution in choosing the definitions.

not all scientific theories are falsifiable, this is why we use the term 'theory'

Yes they are, by definition. Falsifiable does not mean wrong. It means testable. Not sure if that's the reason you had in mind.

you carry on about the inherant flaws of evolution, then propose an equally ambiguous and flawed model and claim it to be superior to evolution for no logical reason other than what seems to be a desire to reconcile christian beliefs into natural selection

No, the object was to undermine the common argument that evolution is scientific because it is the best explanation, and to point out the philosophical limitations of non-scientific theories.

I'll side with the vast majority of researchers and scientists across the globe on this issue thanks.

The vast majority of scientists relegate it to natural history.

Evolution has produced falsifiable experiment: natural selection, you even agree that natural selection is scientific

Basing a theory in part on a scientific theory does not make it scientific. There are plenty of crackpot theories around that are based in part on accepted scientific theories and laws.

Common ancestry has been found to be quite an acceptable model that has evidence to support it. Example, my natural science major friend has told me about some species of tree that were scientifically demonstrated to be separate species

Perhaps, but it is not a scientific theory. Also, you left out the universal bit.

Beneficial mutation is a spurious interpretation of evolutionary theory there freediver.

No it isn't. It is the currently accepted version of the theory of evolution - punctuated equilibria.

It is and always was thought that mutation occurred as a result of survivability

No it wasn't.

natural selection is the model used to describe the processes of evolution

Part of the theory. They are not the same thing remember.

if you agree with one you agree with both because they are different aspects of the same thing

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to accpet one just because you accept the other. They are different. Furthermore this is not a question of whether you agree with them. It is a question of whether they are scientific.

This is not true, many evolutionary theorists believe that evolution tends towards rapid and isolated bursts of change, which you acknowledge is supported by the fossil evidence.

They believed that after the evidence failed to back up the original predictions.

except that this is what you do with scientific theories, you take the evidence and modify your theory if you have to to support the evidence.

No it isn't.

Einstein did not come up with his theories through deduction and prediction, he created maths that fitted the known evidence.

Actually there was no evidence at the time, and there is still very little evidence. Not that this is relevant to the topic.

His contribution was unusual in that it's necessity arose through contradictions inherent to Newtonian mechanics, even though the technology did not yet exist to demonstrate those contradictions.

Your ark theory is no better than evolution

Except that it fits the available evidence better.

in fact not only is it just as lacking in all the things you slam evolution for

I actually pointed this out in the article. I think you missed the point of the ark theory.

it defies scientific reason by suggesting that all organisms just always have been here

there is nothing scientific in either reasoning.

So what about before? Faith? God put us here?

Those are not scientific questions.

How does this have more scientific merit than a a theory that proposes a scenario that could have occurred without divine intervention?

Lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit. Science is based on evidence, not preferred world view.

Welcome back to the discussion Zoso,

So, freediver, you want to focus on dubious universalist claims when it suits, and you want to break things down into parts when it suits. That's why you're so cagey about avoiding any specific assertions about your imagined "Theory of Evolution" and so pedantic about your definition of an experiment. It's an old trick of sophistry worthy of the most ardent pseudo-scientist. Looking at the list of logical fallacies you've provided elsewhere on the website, I would say this is a species of the "strawman" argument. I also note the curious omission of reductio ad absurdum from your list. Your theory that "Evolution" is not scientific has been falsified on each occasion that you have made any specific claim and it is clear that you have no genuine interest in empirical evidence.

Lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit.

Wrong, unless you have evidence for divine intervention.

Science is based on evidence, not preferred world view.

Wrong again. Science is precisely a world view which prefers - no insists - that claims should be based on observable evidence.

If I'm a child and I observe my mother putting chocolate eggs on the end of my bed in the middle of the night, would it be rational or scientific for me to continue to believe the eggs came from a rabbit.   ;)

Happy Easter  :)

zozo put it nicely "then propose an equally ambiguous and flawed model and claim it to be superior to evolution for no logical reason other than what seems to be a desire to reconcile christian beliefs into natural selection".

freediver is a theist and therefore irrational. Debate is irrelevant. But with all intelligent apparant theists I suspect there is always some self serving motive. Put simply, I don't believe they really believe - but they believe they get some benefit from the stance.

That's why you're so cagey about avoiding any specific assertions about your imagined "Theory of Evolution"

No I'm not. Ask away if I haven't given you enough detail.

Your theory that "Evolution" is not scientific has been falsified on each occasion that you have made any specific claim

No it hasn't. You may have disagreed with me, but that's about it.

it is clear that you have no genuine interest in empirical evidence.

What makes you think that?

Lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit.

Wrong, unless you have evidence for divine intervention.

This comes back to the argument that evolution is somehow scientific by comparing it to creationism. Whether a theory is scientific is independant of the merits of competing theories. Thus, lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit.

Science is precisely a world view which prefers - no insists - that claims should be based on observable evidence.

Again, that is what the ancient greeks believed and it doesn't get you very far. The modern scientific method has a bit more to it than that.

freediver is a theist and therefore irrational

That is a logical fallacy - it is an associatiationfallacy for starters.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#association%20fallacy

But with all intelligent apparant theists I suspect there is always some self serving motive.

You are clutching at straws if you have to guess at my motives to criticise my argument.

"freediver is a theist and therefore irrational

That is a logical fallacy - it is an associatiationfallacy for starters.
 
But with all intelligent apparant theists I suspect there is always some self serving motive.

You are clutching at straws if you have to guess at my motives to criticise my argument. "

freediver makes liberal use of the recourse to logical fallacy arguments but doesn't see the irony. I say that theists are irrational because it is a statement of truth. Theist assertions are neither valid nor invalid - they are merely nonsense.
I am not clutching at straws. I criticise your arguments because they are without foundation and conflict with what is known. As you appear to be reasonably intelligent and still spout nonsense it is fair and logical to question your motives. I cannot know your motives and you refuse to reveal them so I can only guess. Most people are self serving - especially priests and such like eg Mother Teresa. I'm guessing that you run this website with the hope of making money and create interest by posting controversial articles, even if you yourself don't believe them.

On the evolution stuff the basis of your thesis appears to be that you question Darwin's Origin of Species. Perhaps you would answer one question without wriggling and making fallacy objections. Has a new species EVER been established by natural selection? If not, then God was very fond of beetles and viruses. The ark must have been very unhealthy - and crowded as we know that more than 99% of species are no longer present.

Shithouse rat has perceptively spotted this: "I also note the curious omission of reductio ad absurdum from your list. (of logical fallacies)."

I have a strong hunch that freediver left this out because he needs it for the support of the fallacious ontological argument through which the existence of God is said to proved - ala St Anselm etc.

Freediver - why are you doing this? To make money or to save us? Come clean. Why do you always say that this anti-evolution crusade of yours has nothing to do with religion? As I said before, you are acting like an encyclopaedia salesman - never selling, just doing market research so they say. A bit like tele marketeers.

Sense trying to guess someone's motives is the most fundamental logical fallacy of all. It implies that the correctness of an argument depends on who is making it and what motivates them. This is obviously absurd.

I say that theists are irrational because it is a statement of truth.

What does that have to do with whether evolution is a scientific theory?

I criticise your arguments because they are without foundation and conflict with what is known.

But you don't criticise my arguments. You try to build strawmen.

As you appear to be reasonably intelligent and still spout nonsense it is fair and logical to question your motives.

That is a circular argument. You start with the assumption that I am wrong then build your argument around the fact that I continue to disagree with you. Even if I were wrong, that line of argument would still lead nowhere.

I cannot know your motives and you refuse to reveal them so I can only guess.

My motive is enlightenment.

On the evolution stuff the basis of your thesis appears to be that you question Darwin's Origin of Species.

No, I do not question it. I am merely pointing out that the question itself is not scientific. That is the whole point.

Has a new species EVER been established by natural selection?

I don't know. We may never know for sure.

I have a strong hunch that freediver left this out because he needs it for the support of the fallacious ontological argument through which the existence of God is said to proved - ala St Anselm etc.

Um, where did I try to prove the existence of God? I left out reducto ad absurdum because it can be a valid line of argument. It is only invalid if by reducing an argument you misrepresent it, which is far easier to characterise as a strawman.

Freediver - why are you doing this? To make money or to save us?

I hope that one day my site may make money, but at the moment it is losing money. Obviously the money is trivial compared to the time I spend on here and the enjoyment I get from discussing these things. My main reason for starting this site was the green tax shift stuff, followed by the electoral reform stuff. And yes, my motives there were altruistic.

freediver continues to address this whole discussion as a game with constant recourse to logical fallacy claims. Logical fallacy claims can only apply to the formal structure of an argument. I am not concerned with addressing the argument of whether evolution is science - it has been established beyond any doubt that it is science and any further time spent on it would be disrespectful to science.  Only crackpot Christian fundamentalists continue to assert otherwise. My comments here are my views and an attempt to obtain further clarity from the motives of freediver. The issue of logical fallacy is not relevant. Anyway, it is now perfectly clear. Freediver is a Christian fundamentalist (but refuses to admit this) and finds it necesary to discard evolution because it conflicts with the bible. He chooses not to address it in this way because, just like Jehovas Witnesses and salesmen generally, he has been taught to bring in the "enlightenment" (freedivers word) through a back door using sophistry and the appearance of logic.  He pretends not to see the utter contradiction in relying on logical positivist arguments for the meaning of science but disregarding those same arguments which correctly dismiss religious assertions as entirely nonsensical.
Fortunately, I see from the threads here that freediver has absolutely no support for his assertion that evolution is not science - not even from pender or sprintcyclist. This site will remain just another of the many religious crank sites for as long as the offending article remains on the site.

In response to "Has a new species EVER been established by natural selection? "

freediver replies  "I don't know. We may never know for sure."

So, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, freediver asserts that there is no evidence that a single new species has ever appeared on earth by natural selction.  Probably his clearest statement on this issue. Anyone else believe this?

Logical fallacy claims can only apply to the formal structure of an argument.

No, they can apply to any claim, as all claims are open to logical criticism regardless of formal structure. The only difference is that logical fallacies are much harder to identify without a clear structure.

I am not concerned with addressing the argument of whether evolution is science

Then why participate in the discussion?

Freediver is a Christian fundamentalist (but refuses to admit this) and finds it necesary to discard evolution because it conflicts with the bible.

I am not trying to discard evolution. Furthermore it does not conflict with the bible. On those who understand neither evolution nor science nor religion make such claims.

He chooses not to address it in this way because, just like Jehovas Witnesses and salesmen generally, he has been taught to bring in the "enlightenment" (freedivers word) through a back door using sophistry and the appearance of logic.

No, it's because certain people cannot tell the difference between the pointless creationism vs evolution arguments and the argument over whether evolution is a scientific theory. They place so much importance on the former that they cannot even concieve the existence of the latter.

He pretends not to see the utter contradiction in relying on logical positivist arguments for the meaning of science

I am not relying on logical positivist arguments for the meaning of science.

but disregarding those same arguments which correctly dismiss religious assertions as entirely nonsensical

Of course I disregard them. They are irrelevant. They only entered the discussion as part of your strawman argument.

So, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, freediver asserts that there is no evidence that a single new species has ever appeared on earth by natural selction.

As I pointed out, that evidence is not scientific.

freediver - Still playing games and still persuing the back door approach - attacking evolution as science rather than directly promoting creationism.
Your persistent and pedantic avoidance of the religious implications here is for all practical purposes clear dishonesty in the same way as the encyclopeadia salesman is dishonest when he says he is not selling - just doing market research. But you are just as transparent.
Don't bother with another shout of logical fallacy. Just begin to imagine how you appear to all reasonable minded people when you pursue your imbecilic notions through slippery tactics designed to deceive.

I know perfectly well how it appears. Which is why I often get people apologising for making assumptions about what I am saying.

"I often get people apologising for making assumptions about what I am saying"

Thats because you successfully hoodwink them with your high sounding talk - like Zozo until he read your article. I suppose you avoid guilt feelings by assuming that the ends justify the means - you believe your saviour will forgive your dishonesty (if only by omission) if you contribute to saving people.

I backed down because I feel I do not know enough bout this topic to make a worthy contribution. Reading through most of the article of freedivers seems ok, valid dispute over what should be considered valuable science, however once you get to then end, it becomes clear it is nothing more than trying to bring faith back into an area of scientific study.


Quote:

So what about before? Faith? God put us here? Those are not scientific questions.

Here freediver, only you make these not scientific questions. If an evolutionary theorist wants to propose a scientific model for the development of life and species then it is a scientific question. It is you that is making it into a question of faith. Why cannot the question of faith be more esoteric? Scientists explain matter, energy and natural processes, but they cannot explain the origin or existence of matter, energy and their associated interactions, why is it that trying to find a scientific model that explains the development of life from rudimentary elements suddenly NOT a scientific question? Only faith in a divine soul would lead you to the conclusion that life cannot have arisen randomly, and that is a question that scientists are not trying to answer.

The crux of the argument freediver is I believe something I have already mentioned: science is not as perfect and good as you try to make out in your article. You already dismissed my comment with a valid enough point: that science should be as good as it can be. Fair, however what we have here in evolution is a flawed scientific model that is widely accepted by the scientific community, generally the wheat is separated from the chaff by the community of experts who, you know, tend to study for years and immerse themselves entirely in this topic every day of their lives. I'm no expert but that does tend to weigh on my mind - that so many scientists know evolution is a less than perfect model and still accept it over other models lends a lot of weight to the argument. It is science, it may be less perfect than relativity (which we also know to be flawed) or quantum mechanics (which we again know to be flawed) but it fits the bill, it is scientific and it is widely accepted.

And this week in new scientist there is an article about recent evolution in humans that has permitted european humans to digest milk into maturity, something no other mammals can manage. I would link the article but new scientist website appears to be down.

zoso says "what we have here in evolution is a flawed scientific model". It what way is it flawed? In priciple or details? It's stood up to all attacks for one and half centuries. You are far too respectful to freediver's deliberate deceit. To escape from this deceitful approach I said:
"I am not concerned with addressing the argument of whether evolution is science" - that is not an open issue and its not the issue here .
Freediver replied:  "Then why participate in the discussion?" Talk about control.

Freediver must have pretended not to notice the title of this thread - evolution v religion. He much prefers to have a sophistric debate on whether evolution is science where he can succesfully deceive people into believing that he has some superior philosophic knowledge and ability.

Look at freediver's other article especially Christianity and Science. He states there, without even a maybe, that man was made in Gods image and uses that as a basis for his arguments on science. Where is the evidence that man was made in God's image - nothing more than a couple of verses in fairy tale book. How can take seriously the scientific views of someone who utters this trash.

Sense I am not giving credit to freedivers argument, what I am saying is that all scientific models are simply that: models, and as such they are simplifications of reality and carry with them inherent flaws. Two of the greatest theorems in physics which I used as examples (relativity and QM) are both flawed models, we know this because they do not agree with each other yet they each yield valuable insights and both theories together are possibly the absolute pinnacle of human scientific ingenuity. You have to accept the flaws that are present in any scientific model because rejecting them means you throw out the possibility that you might advance from such positions, and many scientists are workingvery hard all the time to advance current scientific models. This is not to say they are not scientific, not by any means.

Freediver is arguing that flaws in evolution (acknowledgement of which has furthered the science) which you would expect from almost all scientific models somehow makes evolution not science, I am trying to point out to him that this is just bull, science can be flawed and still be science. Science is about method and models, personally I believe that all method that is logical and mathematical is scientific method, freediver would disagree but what he is saying is that science is only science if it is of a particular calibre, but this is simply not the case. The way I eat a sandwich can be scientific: if I acknowledge a problem (or simply recognise a natural phenomenon), propose a theory describing the situation, and an accompanying solution then apply that theory through method, then I have devised a scientific method, it may not be the best method but it is scientific none the less. This seems to be the core of the evolution argument that freediver is presenting. Freediver seems to think there is something special that makes any particular logical method scientific, however from the very first day man applied logic and method to any problem no matter how simple or flawed his methods, he was engaging in scientific endeavour. All that matters once you acknowledge this is deciding upon which methods are superior and which should be discarded. Evolution however is one of the accepted ones...

zoso - you really believe that freediver believes what he says on this subject? He didn't invent this argument himself. Its all over the internet on religious crank sites. There's even a science and evolution website which produces a weekly newsletter on this one subject - it posts dozens of articles on it. The nuts see this as a magic key to weaken people's reslove against religion. It clearly works - you take freediver seriously.

This thread should read "the science of philosophy, or the philosophy of science?"  :P

wrote on Apr 10^th, 2007 at 6:46pm:

zoso - you really believe that freediver believes what he says on this subject?

Is it possible to test that proposition?

wrote on Apr 10^th, 2007 at 6:46pm:

zoso - you really believe that freediver believes what he says on this subject? He didn't invent this argument himself. Its all over the internet on religious crank sites. There's even a science and evolution website which produces a weekly newsletter on this one subject - it posts dozens of articles on it. The nuts see this as a magic key to weaken people's reslove against religion. It clearly works - you take freediver seriously.

Don't worry, you wont see my resolve weaken against religious pressure... see my argument in the other thread. I do not recognise that there is even an argument between science and religion, they are mutually exclusive if you ask me.

I can take him seriously if I choose and we do need to take our morally superior cousins seriously if there is to be any sort of civility, I am just addressing his argument as he presents it ;)

What I see here though is a purely scientific area that has been challenged on the grounds of faith based presumptions.

Aushole:  ;D science vs religion arguments are always such fun aren't they?

“we do need to take our morally superior cousins seriously”. Really?
These people including freediver say there have been no new species ever. So there were all these polar bears floating around in intersteller spece waiting for the dust to coalesce and form the earth complete with ice caps, along with thousands of fish waiting for the oceans and rivers, and all the monkeys waiting for the trees to grow. But it wasn’t like that they say -  they have a much more reasonable explanation. Everything was made in week 6000 years ago, exactly as it is now, with all the past and present animals and plants. God made man in his own image so he looks exactly like us (acoording to freediver). I suppose he made all the animals in the image of his pets and he got the plant designs from his garden. And we need to take all this “seriously”?
Zozo – they teach their children this nonsense and you respect them. But of course you respect the muslims also despite the fact that they treat their women like possesions, stone them to death for having sex, and raise their children to hate and prepare to bomb their way to world domination.
The only people you have no respect for are of course those with what you call right wing views.

Sense calm down mate, we are together on this one ;)

You have to have respect for people as individuals if you ever expect other to have respect for you (I believe). If I see a man beating a woman be he Muslim, christian, hindu, atheist or whatever I will call him up on his actions and likely beat him black and blue, this does not mean I will attack any group of people that person is associated with. If an individual builds a bomb and uses it to hurt a whole lot of others then he is a worthless pile of sh!t who I would beat black and blue if I ever met him (or her), this does not make the groups of people they associate with all worthless pieces of sh!t unless every individual in that group is also building a bomb to hurt others. My approach is that each individual is assessed as an individual and that is that.

Right now sense you are being about as irrational as those who you are crossing swords with and that gets everyone absolutely nowhere. If freediver chooses to attack science on valid scientific grounds it is far more productive to counter his attack on the ground he has set, simply charging in and saying his claims are nonsense without actually dismissing their merits leaves his argument more open to be considered by others. People may  see what you are writing and think freediver seems to be the more rational one in this case, I try not to leave this back door open.

And mate, I hold many views that are in line with the traditional right wing, free markets, individual freedoms and responsibilities and so on. I do hold many views that are often wrongly associated with the left such as personal social freedoms. I believe I am a libertarian, I sway to the right on economic issues and I am libertarian on social issues, I do believe in a minimal amount of socialist policy used as a safety net to ensure people are free from destitution but I do recognise the negative effects of the welfare state. See the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ there is more to political position than left and right, I don't even think the extra axis of libertarian/authoritarian used in the political compass is inadequate but it is a dam sight better than the one dimensional left/right.

Edit: Political compass tells me I am dead center on economics and very libertarian on social issues. So there you go.

zoso - I tried the rational approach with freediver much earlier on this thread, before you joined - I know all about the empirical methods, verifiability and falsability. I've got the books by Freddie Ayer, Russell etc. Shithouse Rat took him on too. But freediver is not interested in the truth. He's a deceiver. I've no more time for him. I have no problem with open and honest religion preachers. I can handle that. I object to the undercover backdoor methods adopted by freediver.

Sense, I can handle that :)

however once you get to then end, it becomes clear it is nothing more than trying to bring faith back into an area of scientific study

How so?

It is you that is making it into a question of faith.

How so?

why is it that trying to find a scientific model that explains the development of life from rudimentary elements suddenly NOT a scientific question?

Because it cannot be answered empirically. It is a question of of history.

Only faith in a divine soul would lead you to the conclusion that life cannot have arisen randomly, and that is a question that scientists are not trying to answer.

I agree that it isn't a sicentific question.

is not as perfect and good as you try to make out in your article

I am not trying to make it out to be perfect or good. The definition is based on what makes science science. Just because scientists themselves contribute to, and borrow from other fields such as maths, history, engineering, law enforcement etc is no reason to make science an all encompassing term.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2007 at 1:52am:

however once you get to then end, it becomes clear it is nothing more than trying to bring faith back into an area of scientific study How so?

Here:


Quote:

Q: Will your theory be more popular than evolution? No. People want science to provide an alternative to faith based religions. Evolution explains our current observations in a way that also explains the origins of life. My theory explains current observations in a way that doesn't explain the origins of life.

Here:

Quote:

Most of the famous scientists whose equations and constants we use in physics and chemistry were devout Christians, and sought to know God through his works. The Bible describes God's creation as being both real, and good - therefor worth studying. The idea of consistent 'natural laws' were first derived from the Bible rather than from nature and nature was studied with the expectation of finding natural laws. Finally, man was created in the image of God, so you would expect us to be able to understand God's creation - perhaps this is why maths (an entirely human construction) is so powerful in describing the natural world.

and here:

Quote:

All people tend to come up with a creator or a creation story, even if they haven't been exposed to an 'established' religion. They show a lot of faith in these stories. Is evolution turning into one of these?

Quote:

It is you that is making it into a question of faith. How so?

Because the point of evolution is to propose a scientific model for the way in which life spontaneously came about and evolved into what we have today. You are simply saying: "science shouldn't do this, this is the realm of religion", and yet science is and has done exactly this, while the origin of life may be a question of faith for you, evolution is a scientific explanation of it. It seems to me freediver that you have more problem with the idea that there is a scientific model for the origin of life and you want science to butt out of this question.


Quote:

why is it that trying to find a scientific model that explains the development of life from rudimentary elements suddenly NOT a scientific question? Because it cannot be answered empirically. It is a question of of history.

Neither could relativity until very recently, and many predictions made by Einstien are still yet to be tested empirically, neither could QM be tested empirically until recently and again only in limited capacity, did that mean these were not scientific theories until they were able to be tested? Absolutely not.

Some quotes from Jared Diamond might help to clear things up:

Quote:

Science is often misrepresented as "the body of knowledge acquired by performing replicated controlled experiments in the laboratory." Actually, science is something much broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world... ...A frequent solution is to apply what is termed the "comparative method" or the "natural experiment" - i.e., to compare natural situations differing with respect to the variable of interest.

So you see empirical experiment is not the be all and end all of science, careful observation and consideration are often sufficient in the development of scientific models, especially ones where direct experiment is simply not possible.

Evolution is  an attempt to reconcile the idea of a random spontaneous emergence of life with scientific understanding, the model may be imperfect but it has proved so useful in so many areas of biology that it has never been dismissed by true scientists, only altered and improved as all complex scientific models should be.


Quote:

Only faith in a divine soul would lead you to the conclusion that life cannot have arisen randomly, and that is a question that scientists are not trying to answer. I agree that it isn't a sicentific question.

And never once has a proponent of evolution attempted to answer such a question, you on the other hand are using the idea that life must involve a soul and life could not have arisen spontaneously as a basis to attack evolution as though it were not science. Evolution answers a purely scientific question: how could life have arisen without resorting to faith in divine intervention?


Quote:

is not as perfect and good as you try to make out in your article I am not trying to make it out to be perfect or good. The definition is based on what makes science science. Just because scientists themselves contribute to, and borrow from other fields such as maths, history, engineering, law enforcement etc is no reason to make science an all encompassing term.

Maths is science, history is science, engineering is applied science, law enforcement is more or less applied science (at least concerned with).

Science IS an all encompassing term, it simply means the study of naturally observed phenomena. You are the one trying to change the definition of science here simply so that you can show evolution does not fit your idea of what science is. Your argument is a straw man, you invent your own definition of science that conveniently does not fit in with evolutionary theory, then attack evolution on the basis that it does not fit the straw man you are calling science.

Here are some arguments presented in defense of evolution in a much more clear and well informed manner than I am capable of without further study into the subject:

http://digg.com/world_news/Pope_says_science_too_narrow_to_explain_creation

Two fantastic links found in that digg debate:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

One of my favorite examples is the snake, we have fossil records that demonstrate snakes and lizards have common ancestors, some snakes are even born with legs either formed inside their bodies or actually sticking out. These are separate species by definition, ie they cannot interbreed, and yet fossil records and other studies can demonstrate that snakes and lizards have a common ancestor.

Basically, this statement from your article:

Quote:

This would require no beneficial mutations, just a careful and prolonged selective breeding program, and the exchange of DNA that often occurs naturally between different species.

Is self-disproving, if DNA is exchanged between species, they are not separate species, that violates the definition of species.

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species)

Quote:

Species - the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Another link to the same site: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

This one I simply have to quote:

Quote:

#  There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:    * a static fossil record;    * true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;    * a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;    * observations of organisms being created.

More on falsification: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html

On predictions: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

Quote:

The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.

Zoso, that doesn't mean I am trying to bring faith back into science. Far from it. I am claiming that the tendency to assume evolution is a scientific theory has more to do with faith than science. Also, that example is not intended to be a serious theory, it is just to demonstrate how evolution is not scientific by removing the issue of faith.

You are simply saying: "science shouldn't do this, this is the realm of religion"

No, I am saying science should do this because it is not a scientific question. Or rather, science can't, and that to claim that attempts to do so are scientific is misleading.

Neither could relativity until very recently, and many predictions made by Einstien are still yet to be tested empirically, neither could QM be tested empirically until recently and again only in limited capacity, did that mean these were not scientific theories until they were able to be tested?

Having to wait fifty years for the technology, funds etc does not make something usncientific. It obviously limits progress, but that's all.

Science is often misrepresented as "the body of knowledge acquired by performing replicated controlled experiments in the laboratory.

I agree with that and made the same point here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

[url]Actually, science is something much broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world...[/url]

If you make the definition too broad, science is indistuingishable from history. Of course, that is understandable given that Diamond is an historian.

...A frequent solution is to apply what is termed the "comparative method" or the "natural experiment" - i.e., to compare natural situations differing with respect to the variable of interest.

Again, I made the same point here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

Evolution is  an attempt to reconcile the idea of a random spontaneous emergence of life with scientific understanding

That doesn't make it scientific. In fact it appears to concede that the theory itself is not scientific, but rather an attempt to reconcile science with soemthing else.

the model may be imperfect but it has proved so useful in so many areas of biology that it has never been dismissed by true scientists

Natural selection, not evolution.

you on the other hand are using the idea that life must involve a soul

No I am not. I have no idea where you pulled that one from.

and life could not have arisen spontaneously

Nor am I claiming that.

Evolution answers a purely scientific question: how could life have arisen without resorting to faith in divine intervention?

This is a question involving faith. It is clearly not a purely scientific question.

Maths is science, history is science, engineering is applied science, law enforcement is more or less applied science (at least concerned with).

So why not teach evolution in maths or history classes? Could it be that they are not science and that to broaden the definition that way destroys any potential for meaning?

Science IS an all encompassing term, it simply means the study of naturally observed phenomena.

Natural slection is a naturally observed phenomena, evolution isn't.

You are the one trying to change the definition of science here simply so that you can show evolution does not fit your idea of what science is.

You are the one claiming there is no difference between science, history and maths. That is clearly absurd. If it were true, then people wouldn't be able to understand why certain things are taught in history, science and maths classes.

we have fossil records that demonstrate

Again, not empirical evidence. Using non-empirical evidence to back up your view when it is the use of that evidence that is in question is clearly absurd.

Is self-disproving, if DNA is exchanged between species, they are not separate species, that violates the definition of species.

And yet it happens, and evolutionists don't bat an eyelid even though it contradicts one of the 'claimed' fundamental premises of their theory. Of course, when it sinks in they will just drop that part because the theory can be used to explain anything.

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution.

None of which are empirical.

The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind.

It is of kind. Scientific theories predict the outcome of experiments. Evolution does not, it just adapts to them.

All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical.

Not impractical, impossible. With scientific theories you are able to isolate the key factors in an experiment to predict the outcome, even if it is impractical to make predicitive calculations in scenarios when too many factors combine. The accuracy of the prediction of planetary motion is limited by effort and knowledge of intiial conditions, and is very accurate. On the other hand it is impossible to predict the outcome of even the most carefully controlled experiment on evolution.

Also, to claim that scientific theories are simplifications is misleading in the sense that it implies that they do not accurately describe the real world. They do. The simplification is in that they explain one phenomena, or one part of it at a time, not that they only approximate them. Those extraneous variables only effect predictions if you let them. The whole point of an experiment is not to let them so that the theory is not a 'simplification.'

It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.

Natural selection, not evolution. Resistance to drugs requires some initial inherent resistance, not a beneficial mutation that randomly generates that resistance. If this were not so, we would wipe diseases out long before they developed resistance.

From Reply #42 - Apr 10th, 2007, 3:35pm, I didn't get a chance to respond to everything in the post of mine following this one, so I'll continue here:

You already dismissed my comment with a valid enough point: that science should be as good as it can be.

Where did I make that point?

It is science, it may be less perfect than relativity (which we also know to be flawed)

Do we? Speak for yourself.

He much prefers to have a sophistric debate on whether evolution is science where he can succesfully deceive people into believing that he has some superior philosophic knowledge and ability.

I have never claimed to have superior philosophic knowledge. That doesn't even make sense. I am not claiming to be keeping anything to myself. I have given the entire philosophy to anyone who wants to read the articles.

He states there, without even a maybe, that man was made in Gods image and uses that as a basis for his arguments on science.

If you consider the context, I start with a long string of if's, then halfway through the paragraph drop their use. Furthermore I am clearly not using that claim to back up the argument, rather I am arguing that if people believe that, then they will act in a certain way. The argument does not hang in any way on whether that belief is true.

Two of the greatest theorems in physics which I used as examples (relativity and QM) are both flawed models, we know this because they do not agree with each other yet they each yield valuable insights and both theories together are possibly the absolute pinnacle of human scientific ingenuity.

As far as I know, the dual nature of matter (wave and particle) allows for both at the same time. Thus they do not contradict each other. If they did, scientists would be working frantically to discover which was right and which was wrong, as always happens when you get two competing theories with different predictions. As far as I can tell you can predict the motion of a particle of substantial size by combining the predictions of the individual waves. Or at least, it is theoretically possible, because the theories do not necessarily contradict each other.

Freediver is arguing that flaws in evolution (acknowledgement of which has furthered the science) which you would expect from almost all scientific models somehow makes evolution not science

Flaws of a different variety. Not flaws that make the theory wrong, rather flaws that make it untestable. The other flaws you are describing are flaws in the sense that the theories are wrong, not in the sense that they are unscientific.

Science is about method and models

I agree with this.

personally I believe that all method that is logical and mathematical is scientific method

This would broaden the definition of science to the extent that it loses all meaning.

Freediver seems to think there is something special that makes any particular logical method scientific

It is not a 'logical' method. It has nothing to do with the way the arguments are built. It is all about how they are tested in practice. It is a practical distinction which explains why science is so fruitful in practice.

He didn't invent this argument himself. Its all over the internet on religious crank sites.

No it isn't.

I do not recognise that there is even an argument between science and religion, they are mutually exclusive if you ask me.

I agree with this. This is the reason behind the article on a Christian foundation for science.

These people including freediver say there have been no new species ever.

Another strawman. I did not claim that. Your resorting to Genesis clearly indicates that you do not have the faintest idea what I am arguing.

Right now sense you are being about as irrational as those who you are crossing swords with

Except he is not actually crossing swords here with the people he thinks he is.

If freediver chooses to attack science on valid scientific grounds

It is philosophy, not science. You cannot define soemthing from it's own constructs. To do so would create a circular argument.

I tried the rational approach with freediver much earlier on this thread .... But freediver is not interested in the truth. He's a deceiver.

In other words you couldn't win the argument so you gave up and switched instead to personal attack, because you believe the only possible explanation for you loosing the argument is that I am deliberately misleading. Did you consider the possibility that you are wrong?

Freedver you re a fool and you fly in the face of the entire scientific community of the world. I think sense is right, you are utterly incapable of opening your mind to this reality.

I give you good sources that counter each and every one of your arguments with cited academic sources of their own and yet you still just dismiss it and go for your un-researched, un-cited opinionated material.

Yes history is science, it is methodical and relies on empirical observation to make hypothesis about the nature of the past, that is scientific, if historians didn't rely on science they would be called theologists or perhaps christians. Yes maths is science, it is the science of geometry, it relies on methodical explanation of natural phenomena. You simply do not understand what science is if you cannot grasp that fact that it is an all encompassing thing.

This conversation is over, all of your arguments have been thoroughly put down and yet you continue on as though nobody said anything to you, debate with a person who refuses to acknowledge the alternative viewpoint is more or less the same as arguing with a three year old.

WHY freediver, WHY does more or less every single well trained SCIENTIST disagree with you? Can you even find me an example of a decent scientist that will say on record that evolution is not science? You are a fool freediver, your head is stuck right up your @ss.

Freedver you re a fool and you fly in the face of the entire scientific community of the world.

No I don't.

I give you good sources that counter each and every one of your arguments with cited academic sources of their own and yet you still just dismiss it

I don't just dismiss it, I go to significant effort to discredit it or point out why it doesn't support what you claim it supports.

Yes history is science

Then why do people intuitively udnerstand that the study of WWII belongs in the history class and the study of atoms in science? It's because the term science does have meaning.

it is methodical and relies on empirical observation

It relies on observation, not experiment.

if historians didn't rely on science

Here you are contradicting yourself. If history and science were really the same thing, then your sentence would be meaningless. It is only the difference between history and science that gives your claim any meaning.

all of your arguments have been thoroughly put down

No, yours have.

debate with a person who refuses to acknowledge the alternative viewpoint is more or less the same as arguing with a three year old

I am not refusing to acknowledge your viewpoint. I wouldn't be able to disagree with you without doing so.

WHY freediver, WHY does more or less every single well trained SCIENTIST disagree with you?

They don't. And besides, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Can you even find me an example of a decent scientist that will say on record that evolution is not science?

Sure, most of them call it natural history.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 8:21am:

Freedver you re a fool and you fly in the face of the entire scientific community of the world. No I don't.

Sources?


Quote:

I give you good sources that counter each and every one of your arguments with cited academic sources of their own and yet you still just dismiss it I don't just dismiss it, I go to significant effort to discredit it or point out why it doesn't support what you claim it supports.

Sources?


Quote:

Yes history is science Then why do people intuitively udnerstand that the study of WWII belongs in the history class and the study of atoms in science? It's because the term science does have meaning.

There is crossover in all subjects. Just because the label in a school class says a subject is one thing, does not mean it is not actually a collection of other things as well.


Quote:

it is methodical and relies on empirical observation It relies on observation, not experiment.

As does science when the situation requires it.


Quote:

if historians didn't rely on science Here you are contradicting yourself. If history and science were really the same thing, then your sentence would be meaningless. It is only the difference between history and science that gives your claim any meaning.

Say what?


Quote:

all of your arguments have been thoroughly put down No, yours have.

What was I I said about arguing with a three year old? You want to put down my arguments? Cite some bloody sources!


Quote:

debate with a person who refuses to acknowledge the alternative viewpoint is more or less the same as arguing with a three year old I am not refusing to acknowledge your viewpoint. I wouldn't be able to disagree with you without doing so.

Curious that you think so...


Quote:

WHY freediver, WHY does more or less every single well trained SCIENTIST disagree with you? They don't. And besides, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

so 99% of all professional scientists are wrong and you, some random webmaster on a tiny website is correct? All alone on your pillar of truth?


Quote:

Can you even find me an example of a decent scientist that will say on record that evolution is not science? Sure, most of them call it natural history.

Sources?

Freediver you seem to think empiricism == science, this is not the case, if it were the case then the two words would have the same meaning, they do not. Empiricism is a tool in the collection of tools that make up the 'scientific method', it is not however the only way to make study scientific, observation and logical deduction is another, mathematical reasoning is yet another, and there are many more.

so 99% of all professional scientists are wrong and you

No they aren't.

You are the one who made the original claims. I am not going to look for sources when it is obvious you have none to back up your claims.

As does science when the situation requires it.

As do scientists. Not science.

Freediver you seem to think empiricism == science, this is not the case, if it were the case then the two words would have the same meaning

There is far more to it than that, but falsifiability (via experiment) is critical.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Heh Zoso - you asked for sources and freediver has given them in his last post. Ok - the sources are to his own articles on this site. Is that good enough?

Interesting that freediver quotes Thomas Jefferson to support his arguments. Here's a few more quotes from Jefferson - very apt to this thread:

“ The priests of the different religious sects... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight”

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountbanks calling themselves the priests off Jesus.”

“The Christian God is a being of terrific character – cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.”

“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”

“A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.”

The priests of the different religious sects... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight

Did you know that many famous scientists, including Stephen J Gould, regard the 'conflict' between science and religion to be entirely illusory and the participants to be ignorant of both science and religion?

I've very aware of Gould's NOMA ideas as expressed in "Rocks of Ages". Godsquad people are always flying to get support from his quotes. Gould was a de-facto atheist who bent over backwards not to offend religious believers or anyone else. His ideas have been destroyed at length by Martin Rees and Dawkins.
Of course Gould's books are all about evolution. I see the cover of his "Hen's Teeth..." book I have has a quote referring to him as a "writer of science". But you would say he wasn't writing about science. Just where in the library would you go to get a book by Gould or Darwin if not the science section?

Freediver, you are the idiot here making the spurious claim that evolution is not science, you are the one with a huge article on the topic that is completely devoid of citations, you are the one making claims that there are scientists out there the agree with you... without providing proof!

so it is true? You do not read my posts before responding to them?

Sources?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html
cited sources on that page:
# Miller, David. 1985. Popper Selections.
# Popper, Karl. 1976. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
# Popper, Karl. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Cited sources on that page:
# Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
# Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
# Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
# Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
# Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
# Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
# Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
# Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
# Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
# Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
# Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
# Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
# Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
# Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments.

complete list or arguments and counter arguments on that website, many of which have cited academic sources:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

And some examples of controlled empirical experiment that have lead to confirmed speciation events:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Quote:

5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation The following are several examples of observations of speciation. 5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization. 5.1.1 Plants (See also the discussion in de Wet 1971). 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. 5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

Quote:

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus. 5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage. 5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology. 5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile. 5.1.1.7 Brassica Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris. 5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas. 5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores. 5.1.2 Animals Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[refs.]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

Quote:

5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy 5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities. 5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays) Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain. 5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes. 5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature 5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972). 5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

Quote:

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956). 5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection. 5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats. They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced. They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

Quote:

5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found. In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation. Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium. 5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below. Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973). Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.

Quote:

stmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift. A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below. 5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments 5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found. 5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established: Population A + geotaxis,      no gene flow Population B - geotaxis,      no gene flow Population C + geotaxis,      30% gene flow Population D - geotaxis,      30% gene flow Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present. Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results. 5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species. 5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:    "Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

Quote:

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis) Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation. 5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum) Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines. 5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses. WH × WH      -      75% P1 × P1      -      95% P2 × P2      -      80% P1 × P2      -      77% WH × P1      -       0% WH × P2      -       0% They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations. 5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile. Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes. For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.

Quote:

5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined. 5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. 5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

I meant sources for the statistics that you 'made up.'

Quote:

6.0 References Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59. Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710. Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90. de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation. de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181. Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428. Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483. Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319. Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64. Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819. Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17. Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Quote:

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444. Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553. Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843. Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358. Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408. Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85. Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737. Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22. Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148. Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384. Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York. Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York. Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302. Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York. Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78. McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66. Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306. Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214. Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503. Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154. Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289. Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467. Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474. Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138. Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646. Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84. Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Quote:

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124. Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230. Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393. Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96. Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220. Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729. Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

Zoso how about you just provide a link rather than copy and paste bombs.

There you go freediver, some reading. Please note that reading goes back onto the previous page... I can just see you reading the final section on 'ambiguous examples' and deciding that my source confirms your view.

Get back to me when you can put down each and every example of observed speciation using sources of your own. Oh and just to give you a leg up, they do exist, you are just being a pvssy if you refuse to go out and find sources of your own... I just look forward to you finding any scientific ones ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 1:51pm:

Zoso how about you just provide a link rather than copy and paste bombs.

Because I gave you a stack of links and you appear to have not read them... I'll teach you to tell me I haven't cited sources. Oh and the link is there.

Go forth and educate yourself, welcome to 2007, you may have had an argument back in the 50s

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 1:50pm:

I meant sources for the statistics that you 'made up.'

Bah, no sh!t sherlock, did I ever claim it to be a true figure? Way to change the subject freediver you still have cited nothing in your article or your arguments, apart from vague paraphrases from academics on the topic of what qualifies as science - you fail to confirm how evolution falls into that category?

Go out and find me a list of scientists that agree with you (shouldn't be hard), because everywhere I look all I see is scientists talking about studies confirming and expanding upon evolution...

Zoso, providing more examples of the same thing when I have already pointed out how those examples do not contradict my argument does not help at all. It just shows that you have not understood my argument.

you still have cited nothing in your article or your arguments

That is because my argument is based on common knowledge.

apart from vague paraphrases from academics on the topic of what qualifies as science - you fail to confirm how evolution falls into that category?

I was not using their definition of science. It you read why I included them, you would see that they admitted to not being able to define science.

Go out and find me a list of scientists that agree with you (shouldn't be hard), because everywhere I look all I see is scientists talking about studies confirming and expanding upon evolution...

Natural historians, not scientists. Remember the bit about argumentum ad populum being a logical fallacy?

Bah, no sh!t sherlock, did I ever claim it to be a true figure?

So you admit to making up your evidence?

My evidence is posted above, take a few of those examples and demonstrate to me how they confirm your opinions? Because those examples are cited directly as counter arguments to the stupid claims you and other make.

The 90% thing was colour, I might as much have said 'lots' and the meaning would be no different, you get it, you just want to argue because it suits your agenda to muddy the waters and keep this debate off track.

Take the examples, show how they fit your description.

Oh and I see you agree with me now?

Quote:

you would see that they admitted to not being able to define science

Quite...

My evidence is posted above, take a few of those examples and demonstrate to me how they confirm your opinions?

Again you misunderstand my argument. They neither confirm nor contradice what I have been saying.

Because those examples are cited directly as counter arguments to the stupid claims you and other make.

You may cite them as such, but only because you do not understand my argument.

Bullsh!t freediver I understand every part of your argument. You claim evolution cannot be falsified and therefore is a theory that encompasses everything, yet I cited examples of ideas that would falsify evolution, you simply dismissed them as not empirical, then at a later point accepted that empiricism is not the only method of science...not only that but you did not explain in any sort of detail how my examples are not empirical.

Tell me freediver: testing the different genetic sequences of fossil records to confirm changes over time, coupled with carbon dating to confirm that age, how is this not empirical methods that test the null hypothesis that a static fossil record would counter evolution?

The presence of chimeras? How does this not empirically falsify evolution? Are you going to suggest that the classification of species and genetic analysis are not empirical methods? Go get some bloody education in the field!

You believe that evolution has no predictive value, and yet in examples I have cited experiments have been conducted to empirically compare a species living in positive environments to those living in harsh environments and the prediction that there would be beneficial mutations under these conditions held up...?

You think that the idea of beneficial mutations is a load of tripe, and yet numerous empirical studies have been conducted to test this assertion and have yielded positive results....? THE EXAMPLES ARE ABOVE, smacking READ THROUGH THEM.

yet I cited examples of ideas that would falsify evolution, you simply dismissed them as not empirical

Perhaps you meant empirical in the sense of observations. I should have used the term experimental to differentiate between casual observations and attempts to isolate causal relationships.

testing the different genetic sequences of fossil records

Fossil records do not have genetic sequences.

The presence of chimeras? How does this not empirically falsify evolution?

It would, but it is not an experiment. Furthermore, chimeras are quite common. This thing about chimeras is based on an assumption by many evolutionists that organisms can only get their genetic info from their parents (ie within the same species). However, organisms frequently exchange DNA with other species.

yet in examples I have cited experiments have been conducted to empirically compare a species living in positive environments to those living in harsh environments and the prediction that there would be beneficial mutations under these conditions held up...?

Beneficial mutation was not observed. What was observed was far more likely to be already present.

You think that the idea of beneficial mutations is a load of tripe

Far from it. Of course, you would know this if you truly did understand my argument as you claim.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 2:46pm:

yet I cited examples of ideas that would falsify evolution, you simply dismissed them as not empirical Perhaps you meant empirical in the sense of observations. I should have used the term experimental to differentiate between casual observations and attempts to isolate causal relationships.

Quite the little dance you do isnt it? you're here then you're there, nobody knows where freediver might stand next, keeping things sufficiently vague to always have a way out, sense is on the money!

Newsflash d!ckhead, empiricism implies experiment by definition ::)


Quote:

testing the different genetic sequences of fossil records Fossil records do not have genetic sequences.

Hmm... are you sure about that? Tree sap has yielded many species that can and have had their DNA examined, thank you.


Quote:

The presence of chimeras? How does this not empirically falsify evolution? It would, but it is not an experiment. Furthermore, chimeras are quite common. This thing about chimeras is based on an assumption by many evolutionists that organisms can only get their genetic info from their parents (ie within the same species). However, organisms frequently exchange DNA with other species.

Got a source?


Quote:

yet in examples I have cited experiments have been conducted to empirically compare a species living in positive environments to those living in harsh environments and the prediction that there would be beneficial mutations under these conditions held up...? Beneficial mutation was not observed. What was observed was far more likely to be already present.

Hmm yes, so a species can be two seperate species at once now, and yet only reveal its second self under empirical experiment when it suits just so that evolution holds up.... riiight freediver, you are a fcucking crank, my god man!


Quote:

You think that the idea of beneficial mutations is a load of tripe Far from it. Of course, you would know this if you truly did understand my argument as you claim.

The words spewed forth from your mouth (or fingers) I can't be assed digging it up now... I think it is in this thread though.

Newsflash d!ckhead, empiricism implies experiment by definition

Actually, I looked it up in the dictionary as I thought you were trying to use the term to include observations. It turns out, the dictionary does include observations. So I will switch to experiment to avoid confusion. Someone is bound to get tripped up on it. Plus, experiment is more widely known.

Got a source?

It's common knowledge. Why do you think scientists are concerned about gene swaping with the whole GMO debate?

Hmm yes, so a species can be two seperate species at once now, and yet only reveal its second self under empirical experiment when it suits just so that evolution holds up.... riiight freediver, you are a fcucking crank, my god man!

Even evolutionists do not consider mutation alone to be sufficient for the creation of a new species.

The words spewed forth from your mouth (or fingers) I can't be assed digging it up now... I think it is in this thread though.

Well I doubt it. To say something like that indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

Quote:

It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.   Natural selection, not evolution. Resistance to drugs requires some initial inherent resistance, not a beneficial mutation that randomly generates that resistance. If this were not so, we would wipe diseases out long before they developed resistance.

Hmm... please forgive me if that sounds like you think beneficial mutation is not true.

Besides, on this point again, when have evolutionary scientists ever denied that an initial inherent resistance is not present in this example, it is however by definition a beneficial mutation. If some naturally resistant bacteria exist in such a way that they are different enough from their peers to survive an antibiotic attack, they are different from their peers on a genetic level, enough of these mutations and you can arrive at new species, as has been proven in the lab. You have yet to outline where it has not been proven by the way...

Hmm... please forgive me if that sounds like you think beneficial mutation is not true.

Whether it is 'true' (I assume you mean whether it actually happens) is irrelevant to this argument. What matters is wher it can be tested by experiment. It can't, because the theory makes no predictions about the outcome of such an experiment. In fact it would tend to predict that such an experiment would not produce beneficial mutations, so any experiment that failed to produce one would not disprove the theory.

it is however by definition a beneficial mutation

By that definition, all of our DNA is beneficial mutations. Which makes the observations meaningless.

Tell me then freediver, erase god from the scenario, tell me how life arose out of rudimentary elements without being made up of only random mutations and chemical reactions?

You cannot answer this question without either accepting evolution or claiming that 'god did it' which means you have nothing to say, you have no base for your argument and you are just another religious piece of sh!t trying to erode the merits of science.

Tell me then freediver, erase god from the scenario, tell me how life arose out of rudimentary elements without being made up of only random mutations and chemical reactions?

Why? Failure of science to explain something is no reason to change the definition of science. The presence or absence of God is of no consequence to science.

You cannot answer this question without either accepting evolution or claiming that 'god did it' which means you have nothing to say

Correct, and neither does science.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:44pm:

Tell me then freediver, erase god from the scenario, tell me how life arose out of rudimentary elements without being made up of only random mutations and chemical reactions? Why? Failure of science to explain something is no reason to change the definition of science. The presence or absence of God is of no consequence to science. You cannot answer this question without either accepting evolution or claiming that 'god did it' which means you have nothing to say Correct, and neither does science.

You are the one here redefining science, sh!t dude you aren't even redifining it, you are twisting the evidence that is laid bare in front of you, redefining what evolution is, redefining what empirical studies conclude. You are full of hot air as has been mentioned.

You are the one here redefining science

You are implying there was already a definition. There wasn't. At least, there wasn't a meaningful one that resembles how the term science is used today.

you are twisting the evidence that is laid bare in front of you, redefining what evolution is

I don't recall redefining what evolution is. Do you mean the distinction I draw between natural selection and evolution?

redefining what empirical studies conclude

I doubt the claims made on that site you referred to resemble in any way the claims made by the people who did the original experiments.

Christian biologist launches lawsuit

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Christian-biologist-launches-lawsuit/2007/12/08/1196813062142.html

A Christian biologist is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, claiming he was fired for refusing to accept evolution, lawyers involved in the case say.

Nathaniel Abraham, an Indian national who describes himself as a "Bible-believing Christian," said in the suit filed in US District Court in Boston that he was fired in 2004 because he would not accept evolution as scientific fact.

The latest US academic spat over science and religion was reported in The Boston Globe newspaper. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $US500,000 ($A570,000) in compensation.

The zebrafish specialist said his civil rights were violated when he was dismissed shortly after telling his superior he did not accept evolution because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation.

Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.

The case underscores tension between scientists, who see creationist views as anti-science, and evangelical Christians who argue that protections of religious freedom enshrined in the US Constitution extend to scientific settings.

Feediver thinks that all science must be testable by men in white coats in lab experiments. There are plenty of other fields besides evolution where this is not always possible. Geologists can't go back in time, astronomers can't hold stars in their hands. They observe the natural evidence and infer how the natural world works using multiple lines of evidence.

Feediver thinks that all science must be testable by men in white coats in lab experiments.

Quite the opposite actually, as I explain here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

Yes but you said this:

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

My point is that there are plenty of cases in science where you can't design an experiment to prove a theory. You have to go by natural observation, the geological record etc and determine which theory best fits the observations. You believe human induced global warming has a scientific basis do you not? The only way you could prove this by experiment would be to have a duplicate planet earth with no human activity and a few hundred years up your sleeve!

Quite right pjb.  A tree is.  One can observe it but not prove it.  It just is.  So where did it come from?  Well one can say a seed from a tree before it and keep going back.  But none of that is observation as you weren't here a thousand or a million years ago.  You have to have faith that things remained the same.

What if they did not?  Well, there is no evidence at all because science runs out and faith takes over.  Now there is no difference between the believer and the non-believer.  They are both relying on faith.  Each of a different kind.

My point is that there are plenty of cases in science where you can't design an experiment to prove a theory.

I don't claim that that is what science is about. You can't actually prove anything from a scientific perspective. It's about being able to design an experiment that would disprove it, if it were false.

You have to go by natural observation, the geological record etc and determine which theory best fits the observations.

Defining science this way would allow many clearly unscientific fields into the field of science - for example 'natural' remedies based on witchcraft, creationism etc.

You believe human induced global warming has a scientific basis do you not?

Sure. If it is wrong, it will be proven wrong. However, it is built up of many separate and independently testable theories.  The politics of the issue is rooted in risk management, not science.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 8:50pm:

My point is that there are plenty of cases in science where you can't design an experiment to prove a theory. I don't claim that that is what science is about. You can't actually prove anything from a scientific perspective. It's about being able to design an experiment that would disprove it, if it were false. You have to go by natural observation, the geological record etc and determine which theory best fits the observations. Defining science this way would allow many clearly unscientific fields into the field of science - for example 'natural' remedies based on witchcraft, creationism etc. You believe human induced global warming has a scientific basis do you not? Sure. If it is wrong, it will be proven wrong. However, it is built up of many separate and independently testable theories.  The politics of the issue is rooted in risk management, not science.

So, let me get this straight.  You believe human induced global warming has a scientific basis.  Yet concede it will be proven wrong if it is wrong.  

So you are relying on faith until then?

I think you do believe in faith after all.  So tell me, how can you criticise those who have faith of a non-scientific nature?

Freediver, if the earth does warm then this is still not the level proof of man made global warming you demand of evolution. The warming could be explained by other, natural phenomenon. The best you might be able to say is that the man made global warming is the best therory that matches the observations. For the level of proof you demand of evolution you will need a parallel universe with a duplicate Earth with no human activity and then see if this Earth warms over the same period.

Exactly - without a comparison study the 'science' of human created global warming is seriously flawed.  Particularly as the globe has warmed before - before human intervention of any kind.  So what's the difference?  Now scientists can get rich babbling about it and businessmen (like Al Gore) can make millions of dollars frightening intellectually hampered people.

Freediver, if the earth does warm then this is still not the level proof of man made global warming you demand of evolution.

I do not demand any level of proof for evolution. It's about falsifiability. Furthermore, action on climate change is based on rational risk management and does not require certainty. You are partly correct in that the two issues do involve different 'tests'. Evolution does not pose a risk to our economy, the environment etc.

Well to quote you:

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

So your saying the theory of evolution is not scientific. For the reasons I outlined this is just not true. Using your urguments you would also have to throw many other theories out of science classes. There are many examples in astronomy, geology, climate science and so on which are not possible to verify experimentally.

Using your urguments you would also have to throw many other theories out of science classes.

For example? Scientists are usually pretty ingenious at coming up with ways to test their theories and move the field forward.

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 12:28pm:

Using your urguments you would also have to throw many other theories out of science classes. For example? Scientists are usually pretty ingenious at coming up with ways to test their theories and move the field forward.

Pretty ingenious at finding ways to support their faith I suspect.  I see you are very good at it.

You concede the science is unsupportable, it may even be proven wrong, yet you still have faith it is true because it is your belief.

There is no reality surrounding human caused climate change.  It is mere postulation based on observation of natural events and hypothesizing a theory.  The only reality is it is pure bullstesticles.

Lets be real kiddies- we have Dinosaurs right?- the Bible says they dont exist and we know they do so Religion loses right?

Can anyone tell me that T-rex was never real?

Ill even get a pic - dont move.


http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/dinos/images/field_guide_trex.jpg

Lets be real kiddies- we have Dinosaurs right?- the Bible says they dont exist and we know they do so Religion loses right?

Come back when you actually understand the context of the argument  ::)

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 9:01pm:

Lets be real kiddies- we have Dinosaurs right?- the Bible says they dont exist and we know they do so Religion loses right? Come back when you actually understand the context of the argument  ::)

responding to evolution verus religion....in THAT context.


Seems the topic at present is about climate change or something. Topic question is what Im interested in

I'm not going to explain it to you...go and re-read the posts. Once again, come back when you understand the context.

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 8:55pm:

Lets be real kiddies- we have Dinosaurs right?- the Bible says they dont exist and we know they do so Religion loses right? Can anyone tell me that T-rex was never real? Ill even get a pic - dont move. http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/dinos/images/field_guide_trex.jpg

Dinosaurs caused global freezing.  Must have been all that methane.

Goddamn Im tired and you just went and gave me one more thing to think about DT.

Turning in....

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 9:14pm:

I'm not going to explain it to you.

Im sure I never asked you too?

Why does this arguement exist? The one that wants to prove or disprove that Global warming is a natural cyclical  event occurring every so many millions/thousands of years?

Would it be fair to say that the arguement exists as a way for countries to shrug off responsibility for the purpose of not upsetting the status quo in their little worlds?

That it is easier to argue to the death about the reality of it being man made as opposed to not? In the meantime we are moving ever closer to what? If it is manmade we may be doomed if it is not bought under control and if it is not are we doomed anyway because then we have no control over our extinction/ ever dimishing world.

For if oceans rise and swallow our continents what will become of us? How can we be sure we will not be living on huge seafaring vessells and eating fish and scallops for eternity?  ;)

But having said that I am  serious about manmade versus naturally occuring cycles.,,we can perhaps prevent one but not the other?

Answer me this oceans - what if it is naturally occurring?  After all it has happened before (regularly) and we weren't around to 'correct' it then.

deepthought wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 5:59pm:

Answer me this oceans - what if it is naturally occurring?  After all it has happened before (regularly) and we weren't around to 'correct' it then.

I only go by what I hear DT -and I have heard that in the earths history there have been naturally occurring climate change events. Ice age etc.

So what if it isnt naturally occurring and everyone is dismissing it as hysteria?

You dont buy the climate change theory that it  is man made then?



http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:EbTaKXpFICmQ8M:http://www.tvol.vn/mfiles/trangtin/thuvien/kyluc/2007/10/waterworld.jpg

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 6:09pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:59pm: Answer me this oceans - what if it is naturally occurring?  After all it has happened before (regularly) and we weren't around to 'correct' it then. I only go by what I hear DT -and I have heard that in the earths history there have been naturally occurring climate change events. Ice age etc. So what if it isnt naturally occurring and everyone is dismissing it as hysteria? You dont buy the climate change theory that it  is man made then?

I don't buy it for a minute.

the Bible says they dont exist

Would you mind quoting the relevant text?

deepthought wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 6:35pm:

wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 6:09pm: deepthought wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:59pm: Answer me this oceans - what if it is naturally occurring?  After all it has happened before (regularly) and we weren't around to 'correct' it then. I only go by what I hear DT -and I have heard that in the earths history there have been naturally occurring climate change events. Ice age etc. So what if it isnt naturally occurring and everyone is dismissing it as hysteria? You dont buy the climate change theory that it  is man made then? I don't buy it for a minute.

Just realised Ive threadjacked here DT- Ill continue this in a current climate change thread........thanks ta.

Freediver why did you ask me to not discuss climate change with DT if you both had finished your converstation anyway?
WE were having a chat about Dinosaurs etc.

bump

I asked you not to help hijack this thread, privately I might add - because this thread is a year old. It never dies. It is also the thread which the evolution article links to. There are plenty of climate change threads at the moment.

---

Evolution, creation row ends in stabbing

http://news.smh.com.au/evolution-creation-row-ends-in-stabbing/20071214-1h3o.html

A fruit picking trip to southern NSW ended in the death of a Scottish backpacker who became embroiled in a bizarre row about creationism and evolution.

English backpacker Alexander Christian York, 33, was on Friday sentenced to a maximum of five years jail for the manslaughter of Scotsman Rudi Boa in January last year.

The Scottish couple and York, neighbours at the caravan park, were becoming friends and spent the night of January 27 drinking at the Star Hotel in Tumut.

However, towards the end of the night, an argument between York and the pair about creationism versus evolution escalated into a shouting match at the pub.

Although the altercation had been defused by the time the Scottish tourists left the hotel, it became inflamed again at the caravan park when all three were quite drunk.

According to Ms Brown, York was making dinner when he attacked the couple outside his tent, stabbing Mr Boa with a kitchen knife as the argument escalated.

Evolution is science, it is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Darwinian evolution may not be the most apt model and there are many others but it is a scientific pursuit in every sense of the word. Firstly evolution means things change with the progression of time. This is a scientific statement and can be proven correct by anyone, simple. Secondly, Darwinian theory dictates a mechanism exists to pass on characteristics from parents of a species to their children. It goes on to say that there is a mechanism through which this 'hand me down' can change with the passage of time. One word: Genetics. Darwinian theory predicted genes and facilitated the discovery of DNA. Through our knowledge of genetics we have been able to demonstrate that many of Darwins original theories are good models and this is an impressive thing considering the limited scientific methods available at the time. Thus through genetics we can construct predictions and repeatable experiment to test evolutionary theory in the true sense of science. We are now witnessing drugs produced through these means and new crops emerging (positive effects of which are debatable). The original Darwinian theories have actually held up well in the face of strong scientific method, of course you must also understand the term 'survival of the fittest' literally means 'survival of that which survives'.

Suggesting that evolution should be removed from school curriculum is a dangerous idea, and you would be damaging the future of our scientific community by doing so. As a result our ability to find sustainable environmental models for the future would be hindered and we would fall behind the world standard for scientific excellence.

As with all scientific theories, evolution is merely a model of reality and a flawed one. Science is not so much about finding perfect models as it is about finding good enough models and improving on these models through time. Never the less, you cannot deny the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory: that things change with the progression of time. If evolution is false, why are fossils discovered that do not match the species that live on earth today? Surely this indicates that something has indeed changed with time?

PS: Freediver I take it you wrote the evolution articles on this page? Firstly I ask (without being condescending here) are you a man of science? I mean do you work in the field or have you studied in a related field? (really I'm just curious).

The article:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

The other thread on this:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400

Firstly evolution means things change with the progression of time. This is a scientific statement and can be proven correct by anyone, simple.

That is covered by natural selection, which I am not claiming to be non scientific. Furthermore it is not possible under the scientific method to prove any theory correct, only to disprove it.

One word: Genetics.

Again, natural selection, not evolution.

Darwinian theory predicted genes and facilitated the discovery of DNA.

It assumed that something like genes exist, which is fairly obvious and was already known, but did not offer anything to facilitate their discovery beyond faith in their existence.

Thus through genetics we can construct predictions and repeatable experiment to test evolutionary theory in the true sense of science.

Only natural selection I'm afraid.

The original Darwinian theories have actually held up well in the face of strong scientific method, of course you must also understand the term 'survival of the fittest' literally means 'survival of that which survives'.

No they haven't. They have had to be changed to fit the evidence. Everything beyond natural selection has adapted to the evidence, rather than predicting it.

Suggesting that evolution should be removed from school curriculum is a dangerous idea

I didn't say that it should. However, I don't think that the 'idea' itself is dangerous.

evolution is merely a model of reality and a flawed one

True, but it is flawed in a different way to most scientific models. It is falwed in a more philosophical sense - because it cannot be tested. It isn't scientific to begin with.

Never the less, you cannot deny the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory: that things change with the progression of time.

That is not the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory. People knew that things change well before Darwin.

If evolution is false...

I am not arguing that it is false.

Freediver I take it you wrote the evolution articles on this page?

Yes I did.

Firstly I ask (without being condescending here) are you a man of science? I mean do you work in the field or have you studied in a related field? (really I'm just curious).

I guess so, but I prefer not to make this issue a personal one as it detracts too much from the real debate.

Before I go on, would you prefer I move this to the other thread? (I was unaware of its existence sorry)

No, this is good. The other thread had too much focus on religion anyway.

Scratch that, this is not about science vs religion. That is a different argument.

Freediver, natural selection IS evolution which IS Darwin's theory.


Quote:

it is not possible under the scientific method to prove any theory correct, only to disprove it.

Following this, if a model meets theoretical requirements, makes accurate predictions, and is not successfully disproven it is held up as scientific and put into use.


Quote:

but did not offer anything to facilitate their discovery beyond faith in their existence.

Sure, modern chemistry was the tool used to find DNA, Darwinian evolution was supported by its discovery.


Quote:

Only natural selection I'm afraid.

Again, natural selection IS Darwin's theory. It existed before Darwin but was greatly extended by the man and he is considered a pillar of modern biology, his teachings are a cornerstone of the science.


Quote:

No they haven't. They have had to be changed to fit the evidence. Everything beyond natural selection has adapted to the evidence, rather than predicting it.

This is the way of science. A model is not a reality, it is a model. New evidence quite often causes a model to be modified and become better. This is scientific advancement and it does not invalidate Darwin's theories.

Newton's theories are now widely known to have been quite inadequate when explaining the phenomena he sought to explain. Einstein completely disproved the newtonian model, and yet in engineering we still use newtonian mechanics. Why? because it is still a perfectly useful model, and much simpler to deal with than relativistic models. The same can be said for Darwin.

Of course Darwinian theory has 'evolved', that does not mean it is not useful and incorrect. You must understand that 'incorrect' has a relative meaning in science. Science is not the absolute that many seem to think it is.


Quote:

I didn't say that it should. However, I don't think that the 'idea' itself is dangerous.

What is this then (first sentence of your article):

Quote:

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory.

You fly in the face of scientific understanding and to suggest we should remove it from schools is not a good idea. Perhaps not dangerous in the sense that DT's muslim hatred is dangerous but it would mean we would fall behind in scientific understanding as a nation, something I do  consider dangerous.


Quote:

True, but it is flawed in a different way to most scientific models. It is falwed in a more philosophical sense - because it cannot be tested. It isn't scientific to begin with.

It absolutely is a scientific model and one that is used by biologists, anthropologists and geneticists across the globe. Go tell a biologist that and see what they say.

An example: Take a bacteria or virus, you eliminate it with medicine. The naturally resistant bacteria remain, they reproduce and pass on their resistive gene. The new colony of bacteria have evolved through natural selection, enough of this can create a new species (a concept that is probably not as black and white as you think it is). Before you go on, Natural selection IS Darwin's theory. Biologists still believe in a common origin of all species, that is essentially a common origin of all life and there have been physical studies into the possibility of this which so far support the theories. I will grant that this part at least is a stretch but a model that fits current understanding and is not disproven per se is still valid under the scientific method, and it can still be disproven. Just because it is not as perfect a model as some others we have does not make it unscientific.


Quote:

That is not the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory. People knew that things change well before Darwin.

It very much is a fundamental tenet of evolution. Evolution theory existed well before Darwin as did the concept of natural selection. My description as 'change with time' is abroad sweeping one but it is essentially what Evolution means.


Quote:

I am not arguing that it is false.

You are however arguing that it is not scientific, which is an absolute untruth.

Many scientific models fail to accurately predict eventualities. Climate scientists cannot predict the future of our climate but would you then say that climate science is not scientific? In engineering I can tell you the circumstances that will cause a component to fail but I cannot predict how those circumstances will arise with absolute certainty, engineering is not unscientific because of this.

One final time, Darwins theories involve natural selection, from wikipedia:

Quote:

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist[I] who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin. His theories explaining this phenomenon through natural and sexual selection are central to the modern understanding of evolution as the unifying theory of the life sciences, essential in biology and important in other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology and philosophy.

Note the 'natural' and 'sexual' selection parts...

Freediver, natural selection IS evolution which IS Darwin's theory.

No it isn't. Evolution is the 'extrapolation' of the theory of natural selection into unscientific territory. For example, beneficial mutation, universal common ancestry and the origin of the species do not form part of the theory of natural selection, but are part of evolution.

Following this, if a model meets theoretical requirements, makes accurate predictions, and is not successfully disproven it is held up as scientific and put into use.

No, you check whether it is scientific first, then you go through the motions.

Sure, modern chemistry was the tool used to find DNA, Darwinian evolution was supported by its discovery.

Only the parts of the theory of evolution that are scientific (ie, natural selection).

This is the way of science. A model is not a reality, it is a model.

Sure, but this model is not a scientific one. There is no way to test it. It's ability to adapt to whatever the evidence throws up is it's only saving grace, but it is philosophically shallow.

Of course Darwinian theory has 'evolved', that does not mean it is not useful and incorrect.

We are debating whether it is scientific.

What is this then (first sentence of your article):

It is a different statement.

You fly in the face of scientific understanding and to suggest we should remove it from schools is not a good idea.

Again, I am not suggesting we remove it from schools.

Perhaps not dangerous in the sense that DT's muslim hatred is dangerous but it would mean we would fall behind in scientific understanding as a nation

No we wouldn't. Natural selection contains all of the useful bits of the theory of evolution and none of the fluff.

Go tell a biologist that and see what they say.

I did. he said he's a biologist and isn't especially concerned about natural history.

Take a bacteria or virus, you eliminate it with medicine. The naturally resistant bacteria remain, they reproduce and pass on their resistive gene.

Natural selection, not evolution.

Biologists still believe in a common origin of all species

Religion is about faith. Science is about questioning beliefs. If scientists believed in God that wouldn't make the concept scientific.

I will grant that this part at least is a stretch but a model that fits current understanding and is not disproven per se is still valid under the scientific method

There are plenty of models floating around that fit current understanding and are not disproven, but are ignored by the scientific community because they are not scientific.

Just because it is not as perfect a model as some others we have does not make it unscientific.

I am not arguing that it is unscientific because it lacks perfection. Quite the opposite. It is a perfect theory in the sense that it can explain anything. Completely unfalsifiable.

Climate scientists cannot predict the future of our climate but would you then say that climate science is not scientific?

Science is a methodology, not a field of study.

You do sound like someone from a scientific background... just tell me I'm not a bigoted asshole like some round here :)

I believe you are dancing around the semantics, evolution as taught is simply natural selection, it really doesn't sound to me like you actually disbelieve evolution. If you want to get specific there are dozens of evolutionary theories, all of which are scientific to a degree and all of which contain 'fluff'. Many scientific theories are useless, but scientific none the less.


Quote:

Religion is about faith. Science is about questioning beliefs. If scientists believed in God that wouldn't make the concept scientific.

Primordial ooze theory (for want of a better description) which is what I was referring to, is taught as natural science in natural science degrees at university level. I have a good friend who has been through it. My choice of the word 'believe' was poor and I was not speaking in a belief in the religious sense way. Please don't drag religion into this I hate religion vs science debates and I consider them pointless from the get go.


Quote:

It is a perfect theory in the sense that it can explain anything. Completely unfalsifiable.

Interesting point of view. I might have to rethink my interpretation of your article.


Quote:

Science is a methodology, not a field of study.

I know this, I know this well and have argued this with many religious cranks over the years.

I'm sorry freediver I took your article to be a shallow and ignorant attack on a well founded scientific method. I get uppidy about this topic because I see so many religious cranks attacking evolution these days. Lets just say that what you call natural selection, I see as simply evolution. And I'm going to assume here that you are a man of science because you sound like it, I know you don't want to make this personal but I applaud you for it if it is true. I respect men of science!

evolution as taught is simply natural selection

No it isn't. The unscientific parts are also taught. They seem to be given more weight even.

Lets just say that what you call natural selection, I see as simply evolution.

Many separate them into micro and macro evolution, however I think evolution and natural selection are more meaningful terms.

If you want to get specific there are dozens of evolutionary theories, all of which are scientific to a degree

Not if they aren't falsifiable.

I get uppidy about this topic because I see so many religious cranks attacking evolution

Yeah it's funny how hard it is to keep religion out of this topic eh?

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2007 at 4:12pm:

Yeah it's funny how hard it is to keep religion out of this topic eh?

True :)

Well you slaughtered me here freediver, well done. The reason I originally asked if you were a man of science is that I figured either a) you were an ignorant crank or b) you did know what you were talking about and I might be stepping out of my depth. Looks like I assumed a) and got b)...

Guess I should stick to the physical sciences that I know well. I never have like the natural sciences as I believe them to be overly vague and lead me into silly debates like this one over what amounts to the definition of a word. Physics is where I should stay :)

I have to point out though that I am not kidding about the origin of species primordial soup theory being taught in natural science degrees at my local university. I would grant that it has at least some scientific merit on this basis. And I am aware of studies into the plausibility of such a theory, the Cassini-Huygens probe was in part assesing this theory on Titan (is it?) because they believed the correct circumstances for life are there, and they did indeed find basic organic molecules but concluded that the planet was too harsh for life to have evolved any further.

I think my definition of evolution then (change with time) suits best and I'll give you that it is not a scientific one.

Oh well... I lose I s'pose :)

Wow, you're the first person who has ever said that.

The main difference with biology is the reliance on 'natural experiments.' Rather than controlling all the variables, you look for sitautions where they were controlled for you. Then you get into a heavy reliance on statistics because each individual experiment is far less conclusive. So you are either in the murky area of probabilities or you stick to cataloguing observations.

I'm not too concerned about what is taught at universities as you go there to question and contribute to knowledge, whereas with high school it is far more one way.

Nice debate. I enjoyed that.  :)

The theory of Intelligent Design is a heresy. It explicitly disavows the necessity of God as the creator of the Universe, and promotes an attitude of rationalism which is subversive of faith. St Thomas among others has made it clear that heresy is the greatest sin, and therefore those guilty of promoting the doctrine of Intelligent Design will surely pay the price on Judgment Day.

People of firm faith do not require forked-tongue rationalism to sustain them, but those of little faith will find the logical temptations of the tree of knowledge difficult to resist.

Intelligent Design is merely a fig leaf for the unfaithful who have become aware of their nakedness.

Intelligent design is a curious invention by Christians. It looks to be a vain attempt to bring in rationality and science to the problem of where everything comes from. Its curious because religious people are always telling us that religion and science are separate. There should be no requirement, from their point of view, therefore to find a rational basis for our emergence.
Despite this separation you can be sure that if there were EVER any scientific evidence for ANY theistic belief (eg God) then the religious people would be the very first to shout it out loud and say I told you so.
But of course, there's no possibility of that.

Generally agree, sense, I don't think ID is really meant to be taken seriously by informed people. It's aimed mainly at impressionable schoolchildren. It was a spoiling tactic designed to muddy the waters in the hope of stemming the flow of educated people away from the church. The problem is that any kid with half a brain, who appreciates the reasoning, will soon find far more credible explanations to satisfy their curiosity. It's a counterproductive tactic in the long term (it is heresy after all), but I suppose it also helps a few "pretend" churchfolk with guilty consciences to sleep easier at night.

Religious people have to keep religion and science separate. To do otherwise is to recognize that elements of their scripture are just hopelessly obsolete and long discarded attempts to explain the nature of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if deep linguistic analysis of current origin theories was still able to detect relics from the 'Genesis' model underlying some modern concepts. I'm just speculating here, but Divine Creation was the accepted model for a long time before competing ideas were allowed to be aired publicly, and the transition from this period, known as the Dark Ages, to the Enlightenment was not instantaneous.


Quote:

But of course, there's no possibility of that [finding evidence of a deity].

I'm not quite so sure. My old Pa always carried a spare pair of underpants - "In case of the Second Coming" - he would say. Funny, he wasn't really religious either.  :)

Its curious because religious people are always telling us that religion and science are separate.

So are scientists, and philosophers. However, ID is an inevitable consequence of blurring the definition of science in order to let evolution in. Once you do that, there is no reasonable and rational way to keep ID out.

Is my pet. She is a turtle.

Scratching my head :-?

Her kind has evolved over eons

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 7^th, 2007 at 11:38pm:

Her kind has evolved over eons

Yep, Reptiles are the 3rd oldest creatures on land.

IQSRLOW - why ? How ?
Did some fish wake up one morning 50 millikon years ago and think "I want to crawl under that rock".
So over that 50 million years the rubbing against the rock "develop" a protective bone structure.

This has been done to death all over the internet.

All I will say is that her great great great great great great etc etc grandparents didn't crawl off an ark around 6000 years ago.

Do go on Sprint..I havent heard this one..

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 7^th, 2007 at 11:48pm:

This has been done to death all over the internet. All I will say is that her great great great great great great etc etc grandparents didn't crawl off an ark around 6000 years ago.

No No i must correct you...... The earth is only  5000 years old. ;)
And all the animals (2 of every kind) mated and never had any retarded offspring.
Oh and Adam and eve had two sons and started the human race...... MF.

Oh and Adam and eve had two sons and started the human race......

Incest...a game for the whole family  :D

Think about it! the boys cant mate with eachother, so that makes them mother f*ckers! ;D

Ausnat - hahhaha very good point !!  Will of course check with The Bible. I feel you are right !
Never thought of that.
One great thing of the net, get different points of view.

So what if initially our genes were perfect ?
retarded genes are only caused by imperfections in our genes.

Quote:

So what if initially our genes were perfect ? retarded genes are only caused by imperfections in our genes.

Inbreeding does it.

great point ausnat .

Genesis 4:17, "cain lay with his wife.."

Maybe God made a woman for Cain ??

Whatever, there must have been some "kissing cousins."

oceans, my idea is, whyever and however would a fish want to "develop" a shell"

Turtles are a seperate unique identity. As are giraffes. They were put here as turtles and giraffes.

Quote:

Genesis 4:17, "cain lay with his wife.." Maybe God made a woman for Cain ?? Whatever, there must have been some "kissing cousins."

CLICK! Ausnats fingers go.. ''By crikey ive got it''  Cain must have mated with a Gorilla, thus creating the worlds first black person. ;D

hahahahhahahahahahahaha

ooohhhh, where else could anyone say that ???????????

Only here at Ozpolitic..... Where Politics meets Ausnat. ;D

hahhah, that is excellent ausnat.

years ago I was at a soccer game of one of my kids.
Made a comment about one of our players to another parent.
She said "Which one is that one?". I hesitated, trying to differentiate him from the others.
Then said the obvious "He is the black one."

Should have seen the looks I got !!!!!!!!!!
Everyone knew which one I meant though.

Quote:

hahhah, that is excellent ausnat.

Could be used as an advertisement. ;)


Quote:

years ago I was at a soccer game of one of my kids. Made a comment about one of our players to another parent. She said "Which one is that one?". I hesitated, trying to differentiate him from the others. Then said the obvious "He is the black one." Should have seen the looks I got !!!!!!!!!! Everyone knew which one I meant though.

Why should people be shocked, you were pointing something out as it was.

Great advertisment.

They were shocked i would say "black" as a way of differentiating someone.
This is all beside the fact he was the only black player on the field, and probably within 4 kms so identified him perfectly.
I just used that feature of him as it identidiede him immediately. he was the best player.

Racists !

so be it! anyhow back on topic.

What was the topic?

Anyway, there are 22 boys, same age, same size, many have same hair colour. One has black skin !!!

I get filthy looks for saying, he is the black one !!!!!!!!!!!
Shows I am in the engineering arm of study !!!

Quote:

Shows I am in the engineering arm of study !!!

Nicely put.

What was the topic again ?

yes, I would guess there were many "kissing cousins." By necessity ?
Supposing initially the genes were perfect, inerbreeding would not result in deformities.
Retardations are caused when "flaws" overrule the "normal" situation.
If there are no flaws, there will be no retardations ?


As to creation,  how come there are not animals running around who are "progressing" toward another species ?  eg , how come we don't have animals 1/2 way between zebras and giraffes ?
Assuming giraffes came from zebras.

EVOLUTION....... or cains wife and son. ;D

---

The one on the right has a more focussed intent in his eyes.

hahahahhaahhaha

Quote:

how come there are not animals running around who are "progressing" toward another species ?  eg , how come we don't have animals 1/2 way between zebras and giraffes ? Assuming giraffes came from zebras.

Evolution is a slow process...except on the galapagos islands where birds change their beaks for the food seasons. so you wont see it. but fossils tell the tale.
Zebras and giraffes are different species sprint.  

Where did giraffes come from ? Or were they just always giraffes ?

yes, fossils do tell the tale.  ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 5:11am:

Where did giraffes come from ? Or were they just always giraffes ? yes, fossils do tell the tale.  ;)

Giraffes Sprint are descendants of Peter Garret and Andrew Gaze the basket baller..problem solved. :)
http://www.interbasket.net/players/gaze2.jpg


http://www.partnerships.gov.au/csr/photos2006/09.jpg Apparently 'cockelwarmer' at 191 cm could be included in thaty family? ;)

http://www.imgsrv.worldstart.com/store/images/classic-slapstick-comedy-three-stooges-2.jpg


3 stooges

Quote:

Where did giraffes come from ? Or were they just always giraffes ?

An exctinct ancestor.

i am by no means a 5000 year old earthian.

but evolution seems to be equally as ludicrous.

i am reserving my oppion.

just because i dont know where something has come form doesnt mean i have to find a way to explain it. i am waiting for a better explanation.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 9:24pm:

i am by no emans a 5000 year old earthian. but evolution seems to be equally as ludicrous. i am reserving my oppion. just because i dont know where something has come form doesnt mean i have to find a way to explain it. i am waiting for a better explanation.

very wise pender..evolution is the best we have so far though. : :-/

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 9:24pm:

i am by no emans a 5000 year old earthian. but evolution seems to be equally as ludicrous.

I think you have your definition of 'equally' very confused

Quote:

but evolution seems to be equally as ludicrous. i am reserving my oppion.

Please share your opinion. :) :) :) :) :) :P :P :P :P :P ::) ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D :D [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 9:32pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11th, 2007 at 9:24pm: i am by no emans a 5000 year old earthian. but evolution seems to be equally as ludicrous. I think you have your definition of 'equally' very confused

I think pender knows exactly what he means .

to me the idea that a lifeform can create itself from nothing is as crazy as a life form being created by a god, perhaps more so.

then this life form procreated itself?

and learnt how to survive?

and then it randomly mutated light senses?


the chances of this are unbelievably small

so unblievable they make a god look realistic.

How was GOD created. :o

well god exists out of time and so he never was created.

has always been.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 9:42pm:

well god exists out of time and so he never was created. has always been.

So was life.

life has always been?

well evolution relies on the fact that it has not always been, rather that it was spurned many billiions of years after the earth came into existance.

My belief is that the universe has always been around, no big bang or anything.
The earth was formed 4 Billion years ago and life got here via a meteorite. Microorganisms. from a destroyed planet far away.

and these organisms survived in the vacuum of space?

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 9:55pm:

and these organisms survived in the vacuum of space?

Yep, organisms of these sizes do not require oxygen to survive.

your a funny bloke.

its not oxygen they would be concerned with.

also why would they suddenly then decide to throw away this great abiliity of being able to survive without oxygen? that goes against darwins theory of natural selection.

anway i hope you were taking the piss with that last comment.

i'm off to bed goodnight.

Quote:

also why would they suddenly then decide to throw away this great abiliity of being able to survive without oxygen? that goes against darwins theory of natural selection.

Read some scientific books pender. or is that forbidden by the church?


Quote:

anway i hope you were taking the piss with that last comment.

It is scientific fact.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 9:37pm:

to me the idea that a lifeform can create itself from nothing is as crazy as a life form being created by a god, perhaps more so.

Perhaps more so? How so?


Quote:

then this life form procreated itself?

After extensive studies, scientists have concluded that is what life tends to try and achieve


Quote:

and learnt how to survive?

That too


Quote:

and then it randomly mutated light senses?

Yes.


Quote:

the chances of this are unbelievably small so unblievable they make a god look realistic.

My version of unbelievable and yours might be a applied a little bit different. Maybe you're looking in the wrong direction

yeah, there was a big bang alright. God spoke and BANG !   hahahhaha

He also started time.  "In the beginning ..."  The beginning of what ?


the ancestors of giraffes are now extinct ? And ALL that remains are the perfectly completed giraffes ??
There also are no fossils of the evolution from "something" to giraffes we have now.

maybe they was just always giraffes.  KISS

I looked it up, giraffes are related to the horse and their ancestors had short necks.
A 15 million year old specimen was found in north africa.

Punctuated equilibrium.

giraffes came from horses. Does not sound unreasonable.

When did they start reaching up for higher leaves to grow longer necks ? Guessing that is how/why it happened .
Say 10 million years ago ?

So, how come some horses did not start to reach up higher 5 millions years ago too. And some only 2 million ?
We should have giraffes at all stages of evolution. All different length necks

Same as zebras, and my turtle.

Quote:

When did they start reaching up for higher leaves to grow longer necks ? Guessing that is how/why it happened . Say 10 million years ago ?

15 Million years ago.



Quote:

So, how come some horses did not start to reach up higher 5 millions years ago too. And some only 2 million ?

Different diet i suppose.


Quote:

We should have giraffes at all stages of evolution. All different length necks

Evolution is coupled with climate change/ food change. so the weaker died while the strong lived.



Quote:

Same as zebras,

Different environment to european horses.


Quote:

and my turtle.

Reptiles hardly change.

Evolution is not adaption.

everything adapts but their genes stay essentially the same and so over a long period of time a human will always be a human though his/her skin may change etc.

evolution is random mutation of genes where by a mutation that is advantagous causes this new species to become dominent.

the adaption evolutionary theory is a fairy story no serious scientist supports it.

that is why its so unlikely, imagine the amount of random mutations that need to occur for us to get here.

that is why its so unlikely

Although a tad slightly more likely than an all-seeing and all-knowing entity prepared to bring down his wrath on those who do not follow the 'one' true path

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 10:39pm:

that is why its so unlikely Although a tad slightly more likely than an all-seeing and all-knowing entity prepared to bring down his wrath on those who do not follow the 'one' true path

Definately! cant believe some still think ''God'' created all.

In case anyone is interested, evolution is not a scientific theory:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

:D i rest my case.

creation not scientific.

evolution is not scientific.

I do not disagree with natural selection, in fact i believe it to be very true, but evolution :D :D :D

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2007 at 6:52pm:

:D i rest my case. creation not scientific. evolution is not scientific. I do not disagree with natural selection, in fact i believe it to be very true, but evolution :D :D :D

You pender, are a MORON.  Evolution is fact. All is scientific. Do you seriously believe the human race started off with just two people?  of course you do. Because you adhere to an ''education  system'' which is over 1500 years old- when people believed in dragons and unicorns and were living in squalor.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2007 at 6:52pm:

:D i rest my case. creation not scientific. evolution is not scientific. I do not disagree with natural selection, in fact i believe it to be very true, but evolution :D :D :D

I'll second the 'moron' submission.

Evolution is not a theory in the definitive sense of the word, but it is scientific. Creationism is stupidity to the highest degree and nothing more than a sad reflection on our society.

God and science can co-exist as long as you bible thumpers keep your noses out of where you don't belong.

Quote:

Creationism is stupidity to the highest degree and nothing more than a sad reflection on our society.

Damn right. its just religious freaks realising their beliefs are wrong and so they are trying to stick their fingers into the pie. ''Intelligent design'' is not god made, but man made. we are the geniuses who create. NOT ''GOD''.  


Quote:

God and science can co-exist as long as you bible thumpers keep your noses out of where you don't belong.

They could, just like fairy tales and history books are seperated.

There is no need for personal attacks. Why is it always the 'evolutionists' who resort to the immature tactics?

Evolution is a theory. It is not scientific.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2007 at 10:58am:

There is no need for personal attacks. Why is it always the 'evolutionists' who resort to the immature tactics? Evolution is a theory. It is not scientific.

Because its so inconceivable that people in the 21st century still think ''god'' created everything.
Evolution IS a scientific fact. not a theory. Marxism is a theory.

People only call a theory like this a 'scientific fact' if they do not understand the scientific method. Just because you do not understand someone else's perspective is no excuse for resorting to childish name calling.

Name calling? i called pender a Moron simply because he is one. I MEANT IT.
What makes you think i dont understand the scientific process? What if science is a hobby of mine?

Just because science is a hobby of yours does not mean you understand the scientific method. There is no such thing as a 'scientific fact.' It is sometimes used to refer to direct observations, but even these are influenced by your paradigm. Most scientific theories end up being disproven eventually, even ones that are considered solid facts by lay men.

I know you meant it. It is still childish. It reflects more on your inability to discuss the issue maturely and consider alternative perspectives.

Creation is not an alternative

I wonder why God made morons ?



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 14^th, 2007 at 12:30pm:

I wonder why God made morons ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

To give us educated people something to argue against.

There seems to be some great prejudice expressed against black people in this thread.  Or do i misread it?

Connie..

get used to it..I used to get upset, but its debate and is not meant to be taken personally.

Its a touchy thing once we start singling out particular races for discusiion'...but it happens...the people behind some comments are very nice people(and that sounds like a contradiction but true), so dont write them off ok?

Ok.

if you read what i said earlier i am not a creationist, i reserve my oppinion because i havnt found any "theory" to be solid enough...

some of you have very closed minds, just because i do not believe in evolution does not mean i have to believe creationism.

are you so pig headed that you think we are the most intelligent humans will ever be?, that is evolution must be true because thats the theory we currently believe, and the most logical thing we current can concieve?

You remind me of flat earthers in the 15th century.

Quote:

you think we are the most intelligent humans will ever be?,

Of course not. we will get smarter as we evolve.


Quote:

You remind me of flat earthers in the 15th century.

Ha Ha. Look at yourself-  You believe in god, that christ ''rose from the dead''.... HA HA. Unless of course you are a Jew then that is even more pathetic, as they think that the ''Messiah'' is still to come.
Flat earther???? you believe the earth is flat, not us.

we will get smarter as we evolve.

Says who? The theory of evolution does not rpedict that.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 5:48pm:

we will get smarter as we evolve. Says who? The theory of evolution does not rpedict that.

The evidence is right in your face. We've been evolving since we were monkeys, notice how we've gotten smarter over time? why would it stop.

We are smarter than monkeys. However our cranial capacity is less than some now extinct 'relatives' (Neanderthals I think). There is no reason to expect our intelligence to continue to increase, or to think that there has been a gradual increase up till now. In fact there is good reason to think our intelligence is going down.

Quote:

In fact there is good reason to think our intelligence is going down.

Hows that?

I hate to give you something else to wind people up with, but here goes. We have removed much of the selective pressure for intelligence, for example with welfare. If you reduce that pressure, intelligence will go down. If you want to maintain a healthy, strong, intelligent population you need to kill off the sick, weak and stupid, or at least prevent them from breeding. Not that I support any such measures, but that is what the theory of natural selection predicts.

However, even if those natural selective rpessures were still active, there is nothing to suggest that our intelligence would continue to go up. That's because there is a tradeoff between intelligence and energy consumption. Our intelligence would only continue to rise if something changed to that tradeoff.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 6:11pm:

I hate to give you something else to wind people up with, but here goes. We have removed much of the selective pressure for intelligence, for example with welfare. If you reduce that pressure, intelligence will go down. If you want to maintain a healthy, strong, intelligent population you need to kill off the sick, weak and stupid, or at least prevent them from breeding. However, even if those natural selective rpessures were still active, there is nothing to suggest that our intelligence would continue to go up. That's because there is a tradeoff between intelligence and energy consumption. Our intelligence would only continue to rise if something changed to that tradeoff.

Excellent theory Freediver. 8-)

So you agree that 'westerners' are now less intelligent and we should encourage people from less developed countries to immigrate so they can boost our gene pool?

---

I think it was mentioned in the other thread that from a genetic perspective, race does not exist. However, I have heard that there is more genetic variation in a single African village than there was in the entire world outside of Africa, prior to recent mass movements out of Africa.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 6:30pm:

So you agree that 'westerners' are now less intelligent and we should encourage people from less developed countries to immigrate so they can boost our gene pool?

Are you thick or something. Where the bugger does it mention ''people from less developed countries''.
No  NO  NO  NO  NO   NO  NO


They would weaken our genes,.   I CANT BELIEVE THAT STATEMENT FREEDIVER-  if we bred with inferiors our species will become VERY VERY STUPID.

GROW A BRAIN FREEDIVER.


I agree with the theory of Eugenics.

But according to Eugenics, westerners are now inferior.

You realise what this means don't you AN? You come from spoiled stock and your only chance of redemption lies in the arms of:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_ape_woman.JPG

If it is evolution where are all the animals that are still evolving ?
there are only specific set breeds.

Did a group of horses start to "change" into giraffes at one set time, and none others did prior or since then ? There should be groups of 1/2 giraffes, and 3/4 ones, and 1 1/4 giraffes.
The same as "whatever" evolved into hippos ?  And leopards.
Not to mention my turtle.  :-)

[quote]
freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 6:40pm:

But according to Eugenics, westerners are now inferior. You realise what this means don't you AN? You come from spoiled stock and your only chance of redemption lies in the arms of:

Alot of them are inferior due to race mixing.

I come from pure european stock, NO TURKISH, NO ASIAN. I have my family tree here which suprisingly, dates back 1100 years. We were aristocrats therefore thats the reason we kept a record.

What kind of twisted logic do you have? How could breeding with an ''Ape'' improve our genetic line?

According to the theory of natural selection (and by implication eugenics), genetic diversity is the key to a strong, healthy population. This means ethnic diversity, not misguided notions of 'racial purity.' From a genetic perspective, race mixing is a good thing.

The European royal families mistook the inevitable result of their wealth, education, better food and better health care for inherent (ie genetic) superiority. So they only bred with other 'aristocrats.' The result was a weaker genetic makeup and diseases caused by inbreeding.

Who knows ?


Dinosaur mass grave discovered in Switzerland
Email Print Normal font Large font August 10, 2007 - 6:15AM

Advertisement
AdvertisementAn amateur paleontologist in Switzerland may have unearthed Europe's largest dinosaur mass grave after he dug up the remains of two Plateosaurus.

The dinosaurs' bones came to light during house-building in the village of Frick, near the German border.

"A hobby paleontologist looked at a construction site for a house and happened to discover the bones," said Monica Ruembeli from the Frick dinosaur museum.

The finds show that an area known for Plateosaurus finds for decades may be much larger than originally thought.

"It could be that the area extends for 1.5 kilometres and in that case, you could certainly say it's the biggest site in Europe," said Martin Sander, a dinosaur paleontologist at the university of Bonn in Germany.

The Frick area contained the bones of one animal per 100 square metres, Sander said, so the entire area might contain bones of 100 more Plateosaurus.

The peaceful herbivore - measuring up to 10 metres from head to tail - roamed river deltas in large herds some 210 million years ago, according to some scientists, when most of Switzerland was covered with desert and its landscape may have looked much like the estuary of the Nile now.

There are two other large Plateosaurus sites in Germany, Sander said. It is not known how big they are because one is covered by the town of Halberstadt and the other, near Trossingen, by a forest.

Reuters

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/dinosaur-mass-grave-discovered-in-switzerland/2007/08/10/1186530565440.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Scientists-discover-purpose-of-appendix/2007/10/07/1191695716359.html

Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for the gut.

The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria that populates the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. More bacteria inhabit the typical body than human cells. Most of the bacteria are good and help digest food.

But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

That use is not needed in a modern industrialised society, Parker said.

If the gut flora dies, they usually can be repopulated easily with germs picked up from other people, he said.

But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it was not as easy to grow back that bacteria, and the appendix came in handy.

In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the United States, other studies have shown, Parker said.

The appendix, which is about six to 10 centimetres long, may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system, he said.

Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said.

About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC.

Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions.

What a heap of crap!

I deduced the theory of evolution by examining the real world. My theory can be falsified: just show it is the weak and unfit, Howard Huggers say, that pass on their genes.

Laws are summation of things that are observed, e.g. Boyles Law with volume & pressure of guesses.

One of my explanations, that of oceanic islands not having land dwelling life, just birds/fish/amphibians etc that could have been blown or carried by currents to oceanic islands. Some reptiles too.

These days the knowledge of the inheritance of genetic material makes my theory pretty much set in stone.

Welcome to OzPolitic Darwin.


Quote:

My theory can be falsified: just show it is the weak and unfit, Howard Huggers say, that pass on their genes.

That would falsify the theory of natural selection. This is about evolution.

that is a good point why are animals not continuing to evolve, that is why dont we have half girrafe species or arrangutangs with more toes etc?

Giraffe has full range already.

http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/Images/IC10_giraffe_1.gif

http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/Images/IC10_giraffe_2.gif

http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/Images/IC10_giraffe_4.gif

The title is a fallacy. It implies that they are mutually exclusive. They are anything but.

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 2:06pm:

The title is a fallacy. It implies that they are mutually exclusive. They are anything but.

Yes, I agree it is like like apples vs fruits or rather like data vs process vs storage vs entities in system analyses.

just to answer this statement from a long time ago


DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 13^th, 2007 at 7:43pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 13th, 2007 at 6:52pm: :D i rest my case. creation not scientific. evolution is not scientific. I do not disagree with natural selection, in fact i believe it to be very true, but evolution :D :D :D You pender, are a MORON.  Evolution is fact. All is scientific. Do you seriously believe the human race started off with just two people?  of course you do. Because you adhere to an ''education  system'' which is over 1500 years old- when people believed in dragons and unicorns and were living in squalor.

Firstly i do not believe in the "theory" of creationism. As i said i reserve judgment as i do not know. to be perfectly honest the fact i believe in a God has no bearing on how the world came about in my oppinion. God may have instigated evolution for all i know.

Secondly which education sydnetm do you mean? I am a catholic so i guess you meant the catholic church which interestingly supports scientific theories of natual selection. whats more the church specifically states that it does not know the origin of life in scientific terms and it is happy to accept the scientific concencus of the time.

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 1:27pm:

that is a good point why are animals not continuing to evolve, that is why dont we have half girrafe species or arrangutangs with more toes etc?

Do you have any idea of geologic time? But animals have evolved due to our exitence:

A moth in England was light colored but had a recessive gene for dark color. Two recessive gene carriers mated some of their offspring would be dark colored, easy to spot against light colored tree bark by predatory birds. However, as the Industrial Revolution spread and pollution started to cover trees etc the dark moths now were safer than their light colored siblings. Now, the dark gene is the dominant, not the recessive gene.

If antibiotics are injected into a patient or an insectide is sprayed most bacteria/insects die. But a few have a recessive gene that copes with that agent, these then breed and voila we have superbugs immune to our sprays and stuff.

Quote:

Two recessive gene carriers mated some of their offspring would be dark colored, easy to spot against light colored tree bark by predatory birds. However, as the Industrial Revolution spread and pollution started to cover trees etc the dark moths now were safer than their light colored siblings. Now, the dark gene is the dominant, not the recessive gene.

That is like saying that if two blond people have a red headed kid it is evolution in action. It is just natural selection, for pre-existing characteristics.

And that is how evolution works. genetic variation, acted on by natural selection. Those that are successful will be passed on, over geologic time (without out meddling) that is how new species evolve.

And you are an idiot freediver, did not get my point at all! What was a recessive gene is now the dominant, much more important than a sport like a redhead with no redheaded ancestors.

Mutation is not really needed to explain evolution. Genetic variability and natural selection are enough.

Darwin wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

And that is how evolution works. genetic variation, acted on by natural selection. Those that are successful will be passed on, over geologic time (without out meddling) that is how new species evolve. And you are an idiot freediver, did not get my point at all! What was a recessive gene is now the dominant, much more important than a sport like a redhead with no redheaded ancestors. Mutation is not really needed to explain evolution. Genetic variability and natural selection are enough.

Hey Datwin, calling people names doesn't help your argumentation, in fact it lessens it.
I agree that mutation is not really needed to explain evolution but it helps to explain variability of genetic pool.

I'm not totally convinced of evolution, though I am convinced of mutation, some people consider them the same thing.

What about that fish they caught which they thought was extinct, and had fossils dating back 75 million odd years, WHICH WAS COMPLETELY UNCHANGED FOR ALL OF THIS TIME? It didn't evolve for millions of years.

What about trees that don't change for millions of years, same deal as the fish.

Why can a black person breed with a yellow person, a white person etc etc etc.

Why can a lion and a tiger breed?

Why can a horse and a donkey breed?

Anyway, if evolution is true, humans are going to start going backwards. We marry and mate for money, status etc now, rather than genetic preference.

So yeah, look forward to returning to ape man.

Quote:

I'm not totally convinced of evolution, though I am convinced of mutation, some people consider them the same thing.

Who consider them the same thing. Can you name the names?



Quote:

What about that fish they caught which they thought was extinct, and had fossils dating back 75 million odd years, WHICH WAS COMPLETELY UNCHANGED FOR ALL OF THIS TIME? It didn't evolve for millions of years. What about trees that don't change for millions of years, same deal as the fish.

They did evolve. That's why there are so many different kinds of fish and trees now.




Quote:

Why can a black person breed with a yellow person, a white person etc etc etc. Why can a lion and a tiger breed? Why can a horse and a donkey breed?

They did not evolve to much apart. You can see the same with close related trees and bushes.




Quote:

Anyway, if evolution is true, humans are going to start going backwards. We marry and mate for money, status etc now, rather than genetic preference. So yeah, look forward to returning to ape man.

Muslim terrorists are there already.

All terrorists are there already.

By the way Easel, if you take the average 21st century office administrator or accountant and send him back to the Neolithic period to fend for himself, we'd soon see* who is best adapted to survive.

* I always get confused with tenses in hypothetical time-travel cases.  ;)

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 8:45am:

All terrorists are there already. .... * I always get confused with tenses in hypothetical time-travel cases.  ;)

There are disproportionately more muslim terrorists there then any others.

....

It is "grandmother paradox".

Quote:

The grandmother paradox does not occur when the subject and the person being questioned are both attempting to narrate a story. During these times, the Universe is safe from the Paradox

Quote:

And that is how evolution works. genetic variation, acted on by natural selection.

That is how natural selection works. Evolution involves a lot of extra theories which are not scientific.


Quote:

much more important than a sport like a redhead with no redheaded ancestors.

A sport? What are you talking about?


Quote:

Mutation is not really needed to explain evolution. Genetic variability and natural selection are enough.

Wrong. Find me an academic natural historian who agrees with you on that. Or do you subscribe to freediver's theory of sufficient genetic potential?


Quote:

Anyway, if evolution is true, humans are going to start going backwards.

Not really. You could wipe out 99% of the human race without losing significant genetic information. We may be in for tough times, but our genes will catch up pretty quickly if they have to. If anything they are getting tougher. You need a good immune system to survive a plague of your own species. Adapting to living among such concentrated germ sources was critical to our ability to form complex societies. It didn't happen overnight. It took a long time.

There is an interesting show on SBS tonight at 8:30 called Intelligent Design on Trial.

A sport? You don't know what a genetic sport is? Off to wiki with you!

easel wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 1:17am:

Anyway, if evolution is true, humans are going to start going backwards. We marry and mate for money, status etc now, rather than genetic preference. So yeah, look forward to returning to ape man.

So do animals in the wild. Status in the pack. Those who make a lot of money probably have more smarts and cunning than those who just plod, etc.

We, Homo sapiens, is classified as a great ape. We share 97% genetic similarity with chimps.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 7:36pm:

That is how natural selection works. Evolution involves a lot of extra theories which are not scientific.

FD,

In all other matters you seem to take a meticulously logical attitude, yet in the case of evolution, it's almost as if you undergo a personality change.

I studied Geology up to second year university and at that time, they insisted that we do detailed methodical drawings of fossils. I remember in particular, the adaptation of ammonites with their convoluted suture lines which showed adaptation to deeper water environments, and how by the Cretaceous period, the shapes of the ammonites had evolved into completely different forms to suit changing conditions.  

We can trace whole sequences of modern animals, including man all the way from the beginning of the Eocene, and in the case of crocodiles - even earlier.

Tell me, do you also believe that the Earth is only 8000 years old?

Muso, I am taking a very logical approach to this. None of what you posted seems to have anything to do with my argument that evolution is not a scientific theory.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 11:07am:

Muso, I am taking a very logical approach to this. None of what you posted seems to have anything to do with my argument that evolution is not a scientific theory.

How do you understand the term "Evolution"?

Are you talking about evolution, or the appearance of life on Earth? - because they are totally separate things.

I use the terms natural selection and evolution to distinguish the scientific and non-scientific theories. This also happens to coincide with the general use of the two terms. Basically, natural selection applies to traits that are already pesent. Evolution includes everything beyond that, such as the creation of new traits, beneficial mutation, universal common ancestry, the descent of man from apes, natural history etc.

To clarify the terminology, evolution is usually used to refer to a far broader set of theroies, both scientific and non-scientific. Natural selection is conveniently limited to the scientific aspects. Some people use micro and macro evolution to make the same distinction, but I find those terms less useful.

It is pointless for me to go any further until I get a grasp of what you do and don't accept.

If I was to say for example that the Cretaceous Period was from approximately 144 to 65 Million Years Ago, and that the Solar System has an age of approximately 4.5 billion years, are they statements that you would agree with?

If not, I don't see the point in continuing my contribution to this thread.

I see what you're getting at. It has nothing to do with whether the theory is wrong or right. It's just about whether it is scientific. That's all.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:03pm:

I see what you're getting at. It has nothing to do with whether the theory is wrong or right. It's just about whether it is scientific. That's all.

If you agreed with them, you would have said so straight away, so I don't see the point in continuing. It's just too much of an effort. Darwin - pray continue.

Quote:

If you agreed with them, you would have said so straight away

If it was relevant, sure. But it isn't. I am not going to agree with a statement without first checking if it is true, nor am I going to bother checking whether it is true, because it is not relevant. If it helps you, I will answer them as best I can, but don't complain later on when my answers have nothing to do with my argument, or if they are unsatisfactory.

re Cretaceous Period: This is a definitional identity. I'm not sure what the accepted time frame is.

re Solar system age: Again I am not sure what the currently accepted best estimate of the age is.

Here is a model of evolutionary algorithm. Can anybody point out what is unscientific about it?

http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-3.gif

It is not falsifiable, or at least not as a theory for explaining biological change.

tallowood wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:21pm:

Here is a model of evolutionary algorithm. Can anybody point out what is unscientific about it? http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-3.gif

1. It's not an evolutionary model.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:26pm:

It is not falsifiable, or at least not as a theory for explaining biological change.

Why not?

muso wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:36pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:21pm: Here is a model of evolutionary algorithm. Can anybody point out what is unscientific about it? http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-3.gif 1. It's not an evolutionary model.

It is a model of evolutionary algorithm.

tallowood wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:42pm:

muso wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:36pm: tallowood wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:21pm: Here is a model of evolutionary algorithm. Can anybody point out what is unscientific about it? http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-3.gif 1. It's not an evolutionary model. It is a model of evolutionary algorithm.

LOL. Where did you get that from? :)

tallowood wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:40pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:26pm: It is not falsifiable, or at least not as a theory for explaining biological change. Why not?

Because of the time periods involved in the 'mutation' step, and also because that particular step is totally unpredictable. It renders the entire algorithm unpredictable.

muso wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:44pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:42pm: muso wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:36pm: tallowood wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:21pm: Here is a model of evolutionary algorithm. Can anybody point out what is unscientific about it? http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-3.gif 1. It's not an evolutionary model. It is a model of evolutionary algorithm. LOL. Where did you get that from? :)

It does not matter. Let's discuss the model not the places otherwise we finish wondering about value of mandarins in China in tons.  ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:49pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:40pm: freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 3:26pm: It is not falsifiable, or at least not as a theory for explaining biological change. Why not? Because of the time periods involved in the 'mutation' step, and also because that particular step is totally unpredictable. It renders the entire algorithm unpredictable.

The mutation is not the engine of the process but only a supplier of variability of genetic pool.

So? My argument still holds. It still renders it unfalsifiable.

What is the 'engine'?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 4:03pm:

So? My argument still holds. It still renders it unfalsifiable. What is the 'engine'?

"Because of the time periods involved in the 'mutation' step, and also because that particular step is totally unpredictable. It renders the entire algorithm unpredictable."

It doesn't need to be predictable and it happens in each generation. Genetic variation is random but it's worth is sorted at termination criteria test stage.

Process "engine" is the mover of process.

OK then, if you think the model is falsifiable, explain how you would do so.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 4:22pm:

OK then, if you think the model is falsifiable, explain how you would do so.

I am not sure if it is or isn't, that's why I asked.
I suspect that muso noticed something wrong that's why he deflected and exited. But I would like to know what was it.

Anyway, let's wait for Darwin and whoever else before we make any final conclusions about this particular model.

Basically the model is unscientific for the same reason the theory it represents is unscientific. Communicating it as a flow diagram instead of a theory in words doesn't really change anything. The same argument applies to both. The technicalities of the diagram are a red herring.

Muso seems to have mistaken my postion for claiming that evolution is wrong. I suspect that you were doing the same, and assuming I would therefor be able to point out which part of the model is wrong.

LOL This is so typical of other discussions on this forum. First you start off with some kind of total misrepresentation of the subject you are discussing and then proceed to tear down the strawman.

That looks like some kind of batch process. How absurd.

EXORCIZO te, immundíssime spiritus, omnis incursio adversarii, omne phantasma, omnis legio, in nomine veritate  ;D

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 8:25pm:

Basically the model is unscientific for the same reason the theory it represents is unscientific. Communicating it as a flow diagram instead of a theory in words doesn't really change anything. The same argument applies to both. The technicalities of the diagram are a red herring. ...

I agree that the model is visual representation of evolutionary mechanism but I still don't see any reason why it would not work.
Can you clarify which part of it is unscientific?

Whether it would work, and whether it is scientific, are two completely separate issues.

The whole theory of evolution is unscientific. It doesn't really come down to specific parts of it. This article explains it:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Muso, who is making the strawman, and what is it?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:02pm:

Whether it would work, and whether it is scientific, are two completely separate issues. The whole theory of evolution is unscientific. It doesn't really come down to specific parts of it. This article explains it: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html Muso, who is making the strawman, and what is it?

Quote:

What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

But It is falsifiable. If it was not true then predictions about finding intermediate stages between existing biological species would not be fulfilled.

But predictions have not been fullfilled. This has never contradicted the theory, as it is infinitely adaptable. That is because it is a theory that explains after the fact, not a theory that predicts. Failure to find supporting evidence is not a disproof of the theory. It cannot be falsified. If you design any test to falsify it, and the theory fails the test, the theory is not falsified. Rather, the test is.

For something to be falsifiable from a scientific perspective, you must be able to design a repeatable experiment that would disprove it, if it were false. It is not good enough to be theoretically able to stumble across evidence that would disprove the theory. The whole point of science is that anyone else is able to attempt to discredit it at any time. It would be of little value if apparent falsification was merely met with "well you weren't looking hard enough". That sort of standard would allow in all sorts of absurd and valueless theories. For example, I could come up with a theory that unicorns, or aliens don't exist. This could also be falsifified in the broader sense of the term. You would just have to find a unicorn somewhere. But the theory is of no value from a scientific perspective.

Quote:

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. ... Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:02pm:

Whether it would work, and whether it is scientific, are two completely separate issues. The whole theory of evolution is unscientific. It doesn't really come down to specific parts of it. This article explains it: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html Muso, who is making the strawman, and what is it?

It's the flow chart. I mean 'Initialisation of population" or whatever ?
It sounds like a second rank computer simulation for some kind of computer game. That's why I asked where on earth you got it from. For one thing, the Evolutionary process has nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. It's about the modification of organisms through natural selection, based on  environmental constraints, including such parameters as coevolution and interdependance of species within ecosystems and populations.

Mutation is not a major factor. Inheritable genetic variability and the fact that environmental bottlenecks favour phenotypes in the population, leading to genetic drift is by far the major evolutionary mechanism.

There are many other factors much more important than mutation. These include such factors as genetic drift, migration of populations, changing environment, the nature of the environmental change etc.

I think a simple flow chart like that misrepresents the entire process, and just leads to total misunderstanding. I don't even know if it's possible to represent the entire evolutionary process in such a way.  

I am by no means an expert in evolutionary processes, but I know a fundamental flaw when I see it.